Abstract 4118076: Right Innominate Artery Endovascular Intervention Via Single Radial Access and Use Of Embolic Protection

Introduction: The occurrence of innominate artery stenosis is less prevalent compared to subclavian artery disease. Small studies suggest up to 8% of individuals initially diagnosed with suspected subclavian steal syndrome may present with innominate artery lesions. Deployment of an embolic protection filter within the internal carotid artery during percutaneous intervention of the innominate artery presents a solution to mitigate embolism. Case: A 70-year-old female with a history of peripheral vascular disease presented with claudication in both arms, manifested as pain in both arms. Her left subclavian was stented months prior to presentation. An aortogram revealed severe stenosis of the innominate artery (Figure 1). Since multiple attempts to cross the lesion antegrade from the femoral access site were unsuccessful, we proceeded with the successful deployment of an embolic protection filter in the right internal carotid artery via our right radial artery access site (Figure 2). Using the right radial artery, we passed a long run-through guidewire into the distal abdominal aorta. Due to severe aortic tortuosity, we were unable to snare the wire from the aorta. Therefore, we upsized the radial sheath to 7 French over both wires (runthrough and bare). Using a support catheter, we exchanged the runthrough wire for a Glidewire Advantage. We advanced an 8 x 29mm balloon expandable stent to the area of innominate stenosis and deployed it (Figure 3). We postdilated the stent with a 14mm balloon. Angiography demonstrated adequate expansion. On follow up, the patient was without claudication and had triphasic flow in the innominate and left subclavian arteries. Discussion: Treating innominate artery stenosis via radial access employing a sole entry point for both embolic protection and treatment administration offers a substitute where additional access is infeasible. Modern embolic protection techniques are superior due to their flexibility and ease of use. In this case, placing the embolic protection device in the carotid artery was mandatory through the sole radial access to prevent trapping the filter behind the innominate artery stent. We were able to perform both the embolic device placement and the stenting with the same radial access. Conclusion: Endovascular intervention of innominate artery stenosis via radial access, utilizing a single radial access for both embolic protection and treatment delivery, presents an alternative when femoral access is not feasible.