Percutaneous repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Access site complications in thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous access and use of vascular closure devices facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures during local anesthesia and allow immediate detection of signs of spinal ischemia. However, the very large bore access (usually ≥22F sheath) associated with TEVAR increases the risk of vascular complications. In this study, we sought to define the safety and feasibility of two percutaneous femoral artery closure devices during TEVAR, in terms of access site vascular complications and major, life-threatening, or fatal bleeding (≥major) within 48 hours. Access site vascular complications were defined as technical failure of vascular closure or later formation of pseudoaneurysm.

METHODS

From March 2010 to December 2022, 199 transfemoral TEVAR were performed at Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland. We retrospectively categorized these into three groups, based on surgeon preference for the access technique and femoral artery closure method: (1) surgical cut-down and vessel closure, n = 85 (42.7%), (2) percutaneous access and vascular closure with suture-based ProGlide, n = 56 (28.1%), or (3) percutaneous access and vascular closure with ultrasound-guided plug-based MANTA, n = 58 (29.1%). The primary outcome measure was technical success of vascular closure and access site vascular complications during index hospitalization. Secondary outcome measures were ≥major bleeding, early mortality, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 97.6% vs 91.1% vs 93.1% for surgical cut-down, ProGlide, and MANTA, respectively (P = .213). The rate of access site vascular complication was 3.5% vs 8.9% vs 10.3%, respectively (P = .290), with two pseudoaneurysms detected postoperatively and conservatively managed in the MANTA group. The vascular closure method was not associated with increased risk of ≥major bleeding, early mortality, or hospital stay on univariate analysis. Predictors for ≥major bleeding after TEVAR in multivariable analysis were urgent procedure (odds ratio: 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-5.5; P = .003) and simultaneous aortic branch revascularization (odds ratio: 2.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-5.4; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the technical success rates of the percutaneous techniques demonstrated their feasibility during TEVAR. However, the number of access site complications for percutaneous techniques was higher compared with open approach, although the difference was not statistically significant. In the lack of evidence, the safety of the new MANTA plug-based vascular closure for TEVAR warrants further investigation.

Totally percutaneous endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Purpose

The PEVAR Trial demonstrated that compared to open femoral exposure, elective percutaneous endovascular AAA repair (ePEVAR) is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and access site complications. We hypothesized that PEVAR for ruptured AAA (rPEVAR) may also improve perioperative morbidity compared to open femoral exposure (rEVAR). There are currently no reports that evaluate the utility and outcomes of rPEVAR.

Materials and methods

From 2015 to 2021, all patients who underwent an endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA at a single institution were included in the study and grouped into rPEVAR and rEVAR. Demographics, procedural details (successful preclose technique, conversion to femoral cutdown), postoperative variables (blood transfusion, ICU and hospital length of stay) and short-term outcomes (30-day major adverse events (30-day MAE) and 30-day femoral access-site complications (30-day FAAC)) were collected and compared with 50 historical ePEVAR patients from the PEVAR Trial. Statistical significance was determined using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables.

Results

35 patients were identified (21 rPEVAR; 14 rEVAR), 86% were male with a mean age of 72 ± 9 years. All patients underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair with 100% technical success. Seventeen patients (49%) presented with evidence of hemorrhagic shock and 22 patients (63%) had blood transfusion. 30-day MAE occurred in 12 patients (34%) (7 rPEVAR; 5 rEVAR). There was no difference in demographic, perioperative outcomes and 30-day MAE rate between rPEVAR and rEVAR patients. Compared to ePEVAR patient (from PEVAR trial), rPEVAR patients had higher rate of 30-day MAE (34% vs. 6%; p < 0.006) but no difference in 30-day FAAC (19% vs. 12%; p = 0.54). The success rate of the preclose technique was higher in ePEVAR compared to rPEVAR (96% vs. 76%; p = 0.02), but the rate of conversion to femoral cutdown was similar between the two groups (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.57).

Conclusion

Emergent rPEVAR appears to have similar outcomes when compared to rEVAR. Although patients undergoing rPEVAR have higher 30-day major adverse events rate compared to ePEVAR, the method of percutaneous femoral cannulation does not appear to increase the overall procedural or 30-day femoral artery access-site complications.

Characterizing endovascular aortic intervention outcomes for nonruptured aortic aneurysms by physician specialty

BACKGROUND

Evaluate patient outcomes after endovascular aortic interventions performed for nonruptured aortic aneurysms by physician specialties.

METHODS

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), fenestrated or branched repair (F-BEVAR), and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures were obtained from the Illinois Hospital Association Comparative Health Care and Hospital Data Reporting Services database from 2016 to 2019. Logistic and Poisson regression were used to determine outcomes by patient, physician, and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 4,935 procedures, 3,666 (74.3%) EVAR, 567 (11.5%) F-BEVAR, and 702 (14.2%) TEVAR were performed by vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, interventional cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons. Vascular surgeons performed interventions equally between hospital types while interventional radiologists primarily performed interventions in teaching hospitals (68.1%) and interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons typically performed interventions in community hospitals (91.8% and 82.1%, respectively; P < .001). No differences in inpatient mortality were noted between specialties. Patients treated by interventional radiologists had increased odds of staying in the hospital ≥8 days (odd ration [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-3.19) and patients treated by interventional cardiologists had lower odds of being admitted to the intensive care unit [ICU] (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.95).

CONCLUSION

Differences in practice patterns among specialties performing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for nonruptured aneurysms suggest opportunities for collaboration to optimize quality of care.

Predictors of percutaneous access-related complications in aortic endovascular procedures - 'real-world' insights and a comparison to open access

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) is becoming increasingly popular due to fewer access-related complications, shorter procedural times and length of stay (LOS). Our aim was to explore factors associated with access-related complications and their impact on procedural time and LOS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed consecutive aorto-iliac endovascular procedures in a tertiary hub comprising 2 institutions and 18 consultant vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists between 2016 - 2017. Access-related complications were defined as: bleeding requiring cutdown or return to theatre, acute limb ischaemia or common femoral artery (CFA) pseudoaneurysm requiring intervention and wound infection or dehiscence needing hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of 511 patients, 354 (69%) had a percutaneous approach via 589 CFA access sites. In this percutaneous group, access-related complications occurred in 11% of sites (65/589); Their rate varied with procedure type ranging between 3.6% to 17.6%. The most common complication was bleeding due to closure device failure in 8.5% (50/589) of access sites. When uncomplicated, percutaneous interventions were faster compared to open surgical access (p<0.0001). Operation time and median LOS (3 vs. 2 days) were longer for elective standard EVAR patients experiencing access-related complications (p=0.033). In the percutaneous group, multivariate regression analysis demonstrated significant associations between accessrelated complications and eGFR (odds ratio (OR) 0.984 [0.972-0.997], p=0.014), CFA depth (OR 1.026 [1.008-1.045], p=0.005), device used (Prostar vs. Proglide (OR 2.177 [1.236-3.832], p=0.007) and procedural type (complex vs. standard EVAR) (OR 2.017 [1.122-3.627], p=0.019). We developed a risk score which had reasonably good predictive power (C-statistic 0.716 [0.646-0.787],p<0.0001) for avoiding access complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Physiological (low eGFR level), anatomical (increased CFA depth) and technical factors (choice of device and complex procedures) were identified as predictors of access-related complications in this large retrospective series. These are important for safe selection of patients that would benefit from percutaneous access.

Changes in Anesthesia Can Reduce Periprocedural Urinary Retention After EVAR

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a streamlined approach for expedient postoperative care of high-volume procedures. Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become standard treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms and implementation of an early recovery program is warranted. Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) remains a problem lending to longer hospital stays and patient discomfort. We aim to demonstrate the utility of monitored anesthetic care (MAC) plus local anesthesia as a modality to minimize urinary retention following EVAR.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective review from January 2017 to March 2020 of all patients undergoing standard elective EVAR under general anesthesia or MAC anesthesia. Local anesthetic at vessel access sites was used in all patients under MAC. Ruptured pathology and female sex were excluded from analysis. Patient characteristics, operative details, prostate measurements, and outcomes were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Urinary retention was defined as any requirement of straight catheterization, urinary catheter replacement, or discharge with urinary catheter. Chi square tests and logistic regression were used to determine predictors associated with POUR and increased hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Among 138 patients who underwent EVAR, eight (5.8%) were excluded due to ruptured pathology. Of the cohort, 113 (86.9%) were male with mean age of 73 years. Excluding female patients, 63 (55.8%) male patients underwent general anesthesia and 50 (44.3%) underwent MAC. Male patients under general anesthesia were more likely to have intra-operative urinary catheter placement when compared to MAC (82.5% vs. 36%, respectively; P < 0.001). POUR was identified in 17 patients (13.1%) of the entire study population with 15 events (88.2%) occurring in males. Excluding patients who were admitted to the ICU, twenty-two (19.5%) male patients stayed past postoperative day (POD) one, of which those who developed POUR were more likely to experience compared to those without POUR (45.6% vs. 9.7%, respectively; P = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, male patients who received MAC had a lower risk of developing POUR (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.50). POUR was not associated with elective urinary catheter placement nor with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, urinary retention, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), or use of BPH medications. Additionally, neither prostate size nor volume was associated with developing POUR among male patients.

CONCLUSION

MAC plus local anesthesia is associated with decreased rates of POUR after elective EVAR in male patients. ERAS pathways during elective EVAR interventions should implement MAC plus local anesthesia as an acceptable anesthetic option, where appropriate, in order to reduce urinary retention rates and subsequently decrease hospital length of stay in this patient cohort.

Comparison of percutaneous access and open femoral cutdown in elective endovascular aortic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes of percutaneous access and femoral cutdown methods for elective bifurcated endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

Between November 2013 and September 2020, a total of 152 patient (135 males, 17 females; mean age: 70.6±6, range, 57 to 87 years) who underwent endovascular repair due to infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm were retrospectively analyzed. According to femoral access type, the patients were grouped into two groups as the total percutaneous femoral access and open cutdown femoral access endovascular repair. Intra- and postoperative data were compared, including operative time, amount of contrast media, bleeding requiring transfusion, return to the operating room, access vessel complications, wound complications, and overall length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven (57.2%) femoral cutdown access repair and 65 (42.8%) percutaneous femoral access repair cases were evaluated in the study. The two groups were comparable in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics (p>0.05), except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which was more frequent in the percutaneous access group (p=0.014). After adjustment, age, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and obesity were not predictive of percutaneous access failure. Percutaneous femoral access was observed as the only preventing factor for wound infection (odds ratio=0.166, 95% confidence interval: 0.036-0.756; p=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Although femoral access preference does not affect mortality and re-intervention rates, percutaneous endovascular repair reduces operation time, hospital stay, and wound site complications compared to femoral artery exposures.

Comparison of Success Rate and Complications of Totally Percutaneous Decannulation in Patients With Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Background: Total percutaneous closure for the site of femoral arterial puncture using Perclose ProGlide (PP) has become prevalent post-percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of total percutaneous closure of the femoral artery access site post-EVAR compared with VA-ECMO.

Methods: This was a retrospective observational study conducted over 4 years, including 88 patients who underwent EVAR (64 patients) and VA-ECMO (24 patients). Perclose ProGlide devices were used in the femoral artery puncture sites closed percutaneously. In this study, technical success was defined as successful arterial closure of the common femoral artery (CFA) without additional surgical or endovascular procedures to prevent vessel leaking. Access site complications, including overt bleeding requiring transfusion or surgical intervention, minor bleeding, tinea cruris, pseudoaneurysm, and lymphocele, were recorded 24 h and 30 days after arterial closure.

Results: Each group's technical success rates were 95.8% (VA-ECMO) and 92.2% EVAR, respectively. There were no differences in the periprocedural complications of major bleeding, pseudoaneurysm, minor bleeding, acute limb ischemia, and groin infection. Furthermore, we did not observe any complications such as arterial thrombosis, dissection, stenosis, arteriovenous fistula, hematoma, groin infection, or lymphocele at the access site by following-up an ultrasound examination. There was no significant difference in the technical success rate of percutaneous closure by the PP device in the EVAR and VA-ECMO oxygenation groups. Also, no periprocedural or 30-day complications were observed at the access site of the EVAR and VA-ECMO patients.

Is percutaneous access superior to cutdown access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair? A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to investigate whether percutaneous access (pEVAR) is superior to cutdown access (cEVAR) in terms of safety and efficacy during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 1999 to December 2020 for studies reporting on the comparison between percutaneous and cutdown techniques for endovascular repair of AAAs. Outcomes evaluated were technical success rates, access site-related complications and operative time, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies with a total of 1683 patients comprising 2715 groin accesses were eligible for the meta-analysis. pEVAR was associated with a lower risk of overall complications (odds ratio (OR) = 0.63; p = .005) and seroma/lymphorrhea (OR, 0.18; p = .0001) and shortened operation time (MD = -39.04; p = .002) and the length of hospital stay (MD = -0.75; p < .00001) compared with cEVAR. The technical success rate for pEVAR was 95.1% (694/729), with an overall OR of 0.27 (95% CI 0.14-0.55, p = .0003) comparing pEVAR with cEVAR. Furthermore, pEVAR did not increase the risk of site infection, femoral artery thrombosis, postoperative hematoma, nerve injury, dissection, and bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair is a safe and effective method for the treatment of AAA. It reduces the risk of overall complications and shortens the operation time and hospital stay. The technical success rate of pEVAR is lower than that of cEVAR, which may be linked to the selection of patients, operator experience, and the use of ultrasound. Large definitive trials are required to draw robust conclusions.

Comparison between PeRcutanEous and surgical femoral aCcess for endovascuLar aOrtic repair in patientS with typE III aortic Dissection (PRECLOSE Trial)

OBJECTIVES

Aortic dissections are cardiovascular events with high mortality and morbidity rates. Management might be either with medical or interventional approach. Recently, thoracic endovascular intervention (TEVAR) becomes the first treatment of choice because of its better results and lower rates of complications in patients with type III aortic dissections. The intervention might be performed via femoral artery either with percutaneous or with surgical approach. Because of large sheath insertion to femoral artery, Pre-close technique is described in literature. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the outcomes and safety of 'Pre-close technique' to surgical approach in patients with type III aortic dissections who underwent TEVAR with femoral access ≥22 F.

METHODS

A total of 96 patients whom had type III aortic dissection and was performed TEVAR were retrospectively included in the study. Fifty-six patients had TEVAR with percutaneous approach and these patients are named as P-TEVAR group, and 40 patients had TEVAR with surgical approach and these patients are named as S-TEVAR group. Pre- and post-procedural data with complications and procedural data during TEVAR were evaluated for both groups and compared in between.

RESULTS

The main finding was that there was no significant difference between S-TEVAR and P-TEVAR groups in terms of complications and technical success. Operating room time was significantly decreased in P-TEVAR group (P < 0.001). Overall success rate for femoral approach in patients with Pre-close technique was 94.6% and was 100% for surgical approach. P-TEVAR group had post-operative complications in three patients and S-TEVAR group had in four patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Total percutaneous approach with Pre-close technique using Pro-Glide device is a safe and feasible method of femoral access in patients with type III aortic dissections.

Outcomes of Open Versus Percutaneous Access for Patients Enrolled in the GREAT Registry

BACKGROUND

Arterial access and device delivery in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have evolved from open femoral or iliac artery exposure to selective percutaneous arterial access. Although regional application of percutaneous access for these 2 procedures varies widely, the use of this technique continues to increase. Currently, differences in the use of percutaneous access between EVAR and TEVAR have not been well explored. The Gore Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) registry collected relevant data for evaluation of these issues and the comparative results between open and percutaneous approaches in regard to complication rates and length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

This study was performed via a retrospective review of patients from the GREAT registry (Clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01658787). The primary variable of this study was access site complications including postoperative hematoma, vessel dissection, and pseudoaneurysm. Patients were categorized by abdominal (EVAR) and thoracic (TEVAR) aortic procedures using percutaneous-only, cutdown-only, and combined vascular access techniques for a total of 6 groups. Standard statistical methodology was used to perform single-variable and multivariable analysis of a variety of covariates including LOS, geographical location of procedure, procedural success rate, and access sheath size.

RESULTS

Of 4,781 patients from the GREAT registry, 3,837 (80.3%) underwent EVAR and 944 (19.7%) underwent TEVAR with percutaneous-only access techniques being used in 2,017 (42.2%) and cutdown-only in 2,446 (51.2%). There was variable application of percutaneous access by geographic region with Australia and New Zealand using this technique more frequently and Brazil using percutaneous access the least. No significant difference in the rate of access site complications was detected between the 6 groups of patients in the study; however, significantly lower rates of access site complications were associated with percutaneous-only compared with both cutdown-only and combined techniques (P = 0.03). In addition, associated with significantly higher rates of access site complications was longer LOS (P < 0.01). Average LOS was 5.2 days and was higher in the TEVAR group (10.1 days) than that in EVAR (4.0 days, P < 0.05). Increased sheath size does not appear to increase the risk of access site complication.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference found in the complication rate between percutaneous and cutdown access techniques. This analysis demonstrates that percutaneous-only access is safe, has low complication rates, and has lower LOS compared with open access or combined access techniques.

Response Findings after Treatment and Outcomes on CT after Endovascular Repair of Mycotic Aortic Aneurysm

PURPOSE

To demonstrate post-treatment computed tomography (CT) findings and outcomes of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for mycotic aortic aneurysm (MAA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data of patients with MAA who underwent EVAR from June 2010 to December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 22 patients were included (19 men and 3 women). The periaortic features of the MAA regression after EVAR were graded and evaluated by follow-up CT.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 36.5 months (range, 0.5-97 months.). The cumulative survival rate at 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years was 95.5%, 86.4%, 81.6%, and 73.4%, respectively. The early and late infection-related complication (IRC) rate was 18.2% and 13.6%, respectively. One patient died within 1 month from severe acidosis and shock. Of the other patients, the median time to stable response of the MAA was 6 months (range, 3-36 months). Fourteen patients (66.7%) showed early response of the MAA, while 7 patients (33.3%) showed delayed response. A significant association was observed between delayed response and late IRCs (P = .026).

CONCLUSIONS

The post-EVAR periaortic features on follow-up CT aid in monitoring the treatment response of the MAA. Early response of the MAA was associated with a low rate of late IRCs and might aid in adjusting the antibiotic duration after the patient has achieved complete or nearly complete regression of the MAA.

Comparison of Complication and Success Rates of ProGlide Closure Device in Patients Undergoing TAVI and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Introduction

Usage of the Perclose ProGlide^® (PP: Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) closure device is becoming increasingly prevalent during percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The respective conditions treated via these procedures, abdominal aortic aneurysm and aortic valve stenosis, share risk factors but are two different physiopathological problems.

Aim

Our aim was to compare the complication and success rates of PP closure device use in patients undergoing EVAR and TAVI.

Materials and Methods

A total of 74 patients, including 58 undergoing TAVI and 16 undergoing EVAR, were analysed in our study.

Results

Of the TAVI patients treated using the PP closure device, two (3.4%) had access to site-related bleeding complications and two (3.4%) experienced device failure. Of the EVAR patients who received the PP closure device, three (18.8%) had bleeding complications and three (18.8%) experienced device failure.

Conclusion

Due to the underlying diffuse aortic wall pathology, the success rate of PP closure device use was lower and the complication rate of PP closure device was higher in the EVAR group versus the TAVI group.

Fascia Suture Technique and Suture-mediated Closure Devices: Systematic Review

Background  The aim of the present study is to review the available data on suture-mediated closure devices (SMCDs) and fascia suture technique (FST), which are alternatives for minimizing the invasiveness of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (p-EVAR) and reduce the complications related to groin dissections. Methods  The Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for publications regarding SMCD and FST between January 1999 and December 2016. Results  We review 37 original articles, 30 referring to SMCDs (Prostar XL and Proglide), which included 3,992 patients, and 6 articles referring to FST, which include 426 patients. The two techniques are compared only in one article (100 patients). The two types of SMCDs were Prostar and Proglide. In most studies on SMCDs, the reported technical success rates were between 89 and 100%, but the complication rates varied greatly between 0 and 25%. Concerning FST, the technical success rates were also high, ranging between 87 and 99%. However, intraoperative complication rates ranged between 1.2 and 13%, whereas postoperative complication rates varied from 0.9 to 6.2% for the short-term and from 1.9 to 13.6% for the long-term. Conclusions  SMCDs and FST seem to be effective and simple methods for closing common femoral artery (CFA) punctures after p-EVAR. FST can reduce the access closure time and the procedural costs with a quite short learning curve, whereas it can work as a bailout procedure for failed SMCDs suture. The few failures of the SMCDs and FST that may occur due to bleeding or occlusion can easily be managed.

Femoral Artery Closure Versus Surgical Cutdown for Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND To compare the outcome and complication rates of femoral artery closure and surgical cutdown for endovascular aortic repair procedures (EVAR). MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients underwent either percutaneous femoral artery closure (PA group) or surgical cutdown (SC group) for EVAR between July 2011 and June 2016 and EVAR procedures were used for all cases. Data on outcomes and complications were collected and compared. RESULTS The SC group contained 55 patients and the PA group contained 60 patients and the technical success rates were 100.0% and 98.0%, respectively. The mean operation time, time to ambulation, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the PA group (P<0.01). The estimated intraoperative blood loss and wound pain scores were significantly higher in the SC group (P<0.01). However, the PA procedure was more expensive (P<0.01). The overall incidence rate of complications was higher in the SC group (P=0.026). CONCLUSIONS The PA technique had a high success rate, shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer wound complications compared to SC. Thus, PA might be the preferred choice for selected EVAR procedures.

Bifurcated-bifurcated aneurysm repair is a novel technique to repair infrarenal aortic aneurysms in the setting of iliac aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Up to 40% of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have coexistent iliac artery aneurysms (IAAs). In the past, successful endovascular repair required internal iliac artery (IIA) embolization, which can lead to pelvic or buttock ischemia. This study describes a technique that uses a readily available solution with a minimally altered off-the-shelf bifurcated graft in the IAA to maintain IIA perfusion.

METHODS

From August 2009 to May 2015, 14 patients with AAAs and coexisting IAAs underwent repair with a bifurcated-bifurcated approach. A 22-mm or 24-mm bifurcated main body device was used in the IAA with extension of the "contralateral" limb into the IIA. Intraoperative details including operative time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast agent use were recorded. Outcome measures assessed were operative technical success and a composite outcome measure of IIA patency, freedom from reintervention, and clinically significant endoleak at 1 year.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients underwent bifurcated-bifurcated repair during the study period. Technical success was achieved in 93% of patients, with successful treatment of the AAA and IAA and preservation of flow to at least one IIA. The procedure was performed with a completely percutaneous bilateral femoral approach in 92% of patients. Three patients had a type II endoleak on initial follow-up imaging, but none were clinically significant. There were no cases of bowel ischemia or erectile dysfunction. One patient had buttock claudication ipsilateral to IIA coil embolization (contralateral to bifurcated iliac repair and preserved IIA) that resolved by 6-month follow-up. Two patients required reinterventions. One patient presented to his first follow-up visit on postoperative day 25 with thrombosis of the right external iliac limb ipsilateral to the bifurcated iliac repair, which was successfully treated with thrombectomy and stenting of the limb. This same patient presented at 83 months with growth of the preserved IIA to 3.9 cm and underwent coil embolization of the aneurysm. Another patient presented for surveillance 44 months after his original repair with component separation of the mating stent and the iliac bifurcated stent grafts. This was treated with a limb extension and endoanchors to fuse the endografts. Of the 13 patients who underwent bifurcated-bifurcated repair, 100% of the preserved IIAs remained patent at last follow-up. The composite outcome measure of IIA patency and freedom from reintervention and clinically significant endoleak at 1 year was 92% (n = 12/13).

CONCLUSIONS

In this small retrospective review, bifurcated-bifurcated aneurysm repair of aortoiliac aneurysms with preservation of perfusion to the IIA is technically feasible and safe with good short-term and midterm results in male patients.

A Real-World Experience Comparison of Percutaneous and Open Femoral Exposure for Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in a Tertiary Medical Center

Objective:

To compare the outcomes of elective percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) versus surgical cutdown endovascular aneurysm repair (SEVAR) procedures performed at a tertiary medical center from 2012 to 2015.

Methods:

This is a unique study using procedure data from two vascular surgeons who performed SEVAR in almost every case versus three vascular surgeons who performed PEVAR in all cases except when considered prohibitive on account of circumferential calcification or severe occlusive disease of the common femoral artery or some other technical consideration. Medical records of patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective PEVAR or SEVAR between January 2012 and December 2015 were reviewed. Differences in readmissions and complications between patients who received PEVAR and those who received SEVAR were assessed using Fisher’s exact test. The exact Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess trends in length of stay between the PEVAR and SEVAR group.

Results:

A total of 183 patients were analyzed. In total, 132 underwent PEVAR and 51 underwent SEVAR. A statistically significant difference was noted with regard to 30-day readmissions (2.3% vs 13.7%, P = .006) in favor of PEVAR and categorical length of stay tended to be longer in the SEVAR group ( P = .003). The 30-day complication rate was not statistically different (6.8% vs 15.7%, P = .09).

Conclusions:

Surgical cutdown endovascular aneurysm repair results in more readmissions, often related to groin wound complications, which lead to prolonged length of stay and expense. Patients undergoing PEVAR tend to have a shorter length of stay. Overall complication rate was similar in the two groups. We recommend PEVAR for patients with appropriate anatomy.

Editor's Choice - Arteriotomy Closure Devices in EVAR, TEVAR, and TAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies

OBJECTIVES

Cardiac and vascular surgery benefit from percutaneous interventions. Arteriotomy closure devices (ACDs) enable minimally invasive access to the common femoral artery (CFA). The objective of this review was to assess the differences between ACDs and surgical cut down (SCD) of the CFA regarding the number of complications, duration of surgery (DOS), and hospital length of stay (HLOS).

DESIGN

A systematic literature search with predefined search terms was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (2000-2016). All studies reporting on ACD and SCD for a puncture of the CFA of at least 12 French (Fr.) were assessed for eligibility.

METHODS

Included were randomised controlled trials and cohort studies comparing both techniques. Patient characteristics, exclusion criteria, and conversion rates were evaluated. Complications, DOS, and HLOS were compared.

MATERIALS

A total of 17 studies were included for meta-analysis, describing 7889 vascular access sites; four studies were randomised trials, two studies reported from a prospective database, and 11 studies reported retrospective cohorts.

RESULTS

ACD was associated with fewer post-operative seromas (odds ratio [OR] 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.35), less wound dehiscence (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.78), and fewer surgical site infections (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23-0.63). Post-operative pseudoaneurysms were significantly more common in the ACD group (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.55-9.44). In five of 17 studies, DOS and HLOS were not reduced in the ACD group. When all studies reporting a mean DOS and/or HLOS were compared in a non-parametric analysis, neither was significantly different.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis favours ACD regarding the number of wound complications compared with SCD in endovascular aneurysm repair, thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair, and transcatheter aortic valve repair. Treatment duration (DOS and HLOS) was not reduced in ACD. The differences are of limited clinical significance and with this equivocal quality of evidence, the ACD may be considered safe for CFA access in suitable patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Totally Percutaneous Access Compared With Open Femoral Exposure for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous (PEVAR) vs open femoral access (OFA) techniques for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: A systematic review of English-language articles (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) between January 1999 and August 2016 returned 11 studies including 1650 patients with 2500 groin accesses eligible for the meta-analysis. Data extracted from each study were synthesized to evaluate technical success rates, procedure time, and complications for the 2 access approaches. Data are presented as the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of individual studies was evaluated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: The mean technical success rate in the PEVAR group was 94.5% (785/831). The overall OR was 0.38 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.18, p=0.09), indicating no significant difference between the methods. The procedure time in PEVAR was shorter than OFA (mean difference −24.52, 95% CI −46.45 to −22.60, p<0.001). Overall, the total complication rate was 15.3% in the OFA group vs 7.8% in the PEVAR group (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.73, p<0.001). The meta-analysis identified significant differences between groups for all complications (p<0.001) and the following individual adverse events: wound infection (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81, p=0.02), pseudoaneurysm (OR 8.07, 95% CI 1.54 to 42.32, p=0.01), seroma (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55, p=0.008), and lymphocele or lymph leak (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92, p=0.04). Conclusion: PEVAR had a similar technical success rate, shorter procedure time, and lower complication rate compared with OFA. Thus, percutaneous access appears to be the preferential approach for EVAR. However, larger and randomized studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Decade of Progress

Since the world was first introduced to the concept of endovascular aneurysm repair by Parodi's landmark procedures in 1990, stent-grafts have assumed a prominent role in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Most modern systems are trackable, accurate, and secure. The resulting endovascular procedure is safe, durable, effective, and versatile. Perhaps the most significant increment in the applicability of the endovascular technique was achieved by the development of bifurcated stent-grafts, which dispensed with inadequate distal aortic implantation sites. Additional branches and fenestrations now permit endovascular repair in cases of thoracoabdominal, pararenal, juxtarenal, and bilateral iliac aneurysms. These advances in device performance have been accompanied by a rapid dissemination of necessary skills, leading to the development of a new superspecialty of vascular therapy, with elements of vascular surgery, interventional radiology, and interventional cardiology.

Single-Center Experience Following the Introduction of a Percutaneous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair First Approach

We evaluated our experience following the introduction of a percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) first approach using Perclose Proglide assessing efficacy, complications, and identification of factors that could predict failure. A retrospective cohort study on patients over a 2-year period following the introduction of a pEVAR first approach was performed. The primary end point was defined as successful deployment and access site hemostasis. Percutaneous EVAR was technically successful in 41 (77.4%) of 53 patients and 83 (86.5%) of 96 access sites. Factors associated with failure were smaller common femoral artery (CFA) diameter ( P = .045) and CFA circumferential calcification of greater than 50% ( P = .0001). The incidence of access site infection was significantly higher in the failure group ( P = .008) as was procedure duration ( P = .026). Percutaneous EVAR first approach must be introduced with caution. Percutaneous EVAR failure occurs more often in patients with unfavorable access site anatomy. Success rate can be improved with careful patient selection.

Percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Our objective was to undertake a comprehensive review of the literature and conduct an analysis of the outcomes of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair.

Methods

MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; CENTRAL; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists were searched to identify all studies providing comparative outcomes of the percutaneous technique for endovascular aneurysm repair. Success rate and access-related complications were defined as the primary outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed effect or random effects models. We conducted a network meta-analysis of different techniques for femoral access applying multivariate meta-analysis assuming consistency.

Findings

Three randomised controlled trials and 18 observational studies were identified. Percutaneous access was associated with a lower frequency of groin infection ( p < 0.0001) and lymphocele ( p = 0.007), and a shorter procedure time ( p < 0.0001) and hospital length of stay ( p = 0.03) compared with open surgical access. Moreover, percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair did not increase the risk of haematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and arterial thrombosis or dissection.

Conclusion

Percutaneous access demonstrates advantages over conventional surgical exposure for endovascular aneurysm repair, as indicated by access-related complications and hospital length of stay. Further research is required to define its impact on resource utilization, cost-effectiveness and quality of life.

Total Percutaneous Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using Perclose ProGlide Closure Devices

Purpose:

To describe a technique for access site closure in percutaneous abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair using double Perclose ProGlide devices to overcome the problems associated with the bulky delivery system and braided suture of the antecedent (Prostar) device.

Technique:

After obtaining guidewire access, 2 Perclose ProGlide sutures are deployed at 90° to each other. The appropriate sheaths are placed over the stiff guidewires. After the stent-graft procedure is completed, an assistant holds pressure while the knots are tightened with the stiff guidewire still in the artery. Once the second knot is tightened with the knot pusher and after confirming adequate hemostasis, the wire is removed, pressure is applied, and heparin reversed. This method has been used in 17 consecutive patients (age range 65–85 years) undergoing endovascular AAA repair. One patient needed patch angioplasty and 2 required small incisions for additional suture placements (81% primary success rate for total percutaneous repair, 90% success rate for all sites).

Conclusion:

We have found the double Perclose ProGlide technique to be easy to use, safe, and feasible for total percutaneous AAA repair. More experience with longer follow-up is needed to assess its potential to replace the Perclose Prostar closure device for total percutaneous AAA repairs.

Percutaneous Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Techniques and Outcomes

Endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) has become a widely accepted treatment modality. The conventional approach of an EVAR involves bilateral groin incisions to expose the femoral arteries followed by introducer sheath placement, which is typically performed with the use of general or epidural anesthesia. As technology trends toward less invasive methods and sheath sizes become smaller, the use of a total percutaneous approach to endovascular repair of aortic pathology is becoming more common. In this review, we present a brief history of percutaneous closure devices for common femoral artery access, factors important in patient selection, the technique of performing a percutaneous EVAR procedure, early and late complications, and overall outcomes of percutaneous approaches for the endovascular treatment of aortic pathology.

A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Access for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is obtained through surgical cutdown or percutaneously. The only devices suitable for percutaneous closure of the 20 French arteriotomies of the common femoral artery (CFA) are the Prostar(™) and Proglide(™) devices (Abbott Vascular). Positive effects of these devices seem to consist of a lower infection rate, and shorter operation time and hospital stay. This conclusion was published in previous reports comparing techniques in patients in two different groups (cohort or randomized). Access techniques were never compared in one and the same patient; this research simplifies comparison because patient characteristics will be similar in both groups.

METHODS/DESIGN

Percutaneous access of the CFA is compared to surgical cutdown in a single patient; in EVAR surgery, access is necessary in both groins in each patient. Randomization is performed on the introduction site of the larger main device of the endoprosthesis. The contralateral device of the endoprosthesis is smaller. When we use this type of randomization, both groups will contain a similar number of main and contralateral devices. Preoperative nose cultures and perineal cultures are obtained, to compare colonization with postoperative wound cultures (in case of a surgical site infection). Furthermore, patient comfort will be considered, using VAS-scores (Visual analog scale). Punch biopsies of the groin will be harvested to retrospectively compare skin of patients who suffered a surgical site infection (SSI) to patients who did not have an SSI.

DISCUSSION

The PiERO trial is a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial designed to show the consequences of using percutaneous access in EVAR surgery and focuses on the occurrence of surgical site infections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR4257 10 November 2013, NL44578.042.13.

Incidence of acute lower extremity venous thrombosis after percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Improvements in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) have led many physicians to embrace a purely percutaneous approach using the suture-mediated "preclose" technique. Whereas there are a number of theoretical benefits, the rate of periprocedural iatrogenic acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is unknown. We sought to determine the incidence of acute DVT after percutaneous EVAR (PEVAR).

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective review of 52 consecutive patients undergoing elective PEVAR. Demographics, procedural data, and postprocedure lower extremity venous duplex ultrasound data were analyzed by univariate statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 52 patients, the average age was 73 years, and the majority were men (n = 44). Only 6% (n = 3) had a prior history of DVT. The majority of procedures were performed under general anesthesia (n = 51 [98%]) with systemic intravenous heparin. Protamine was used in only 13 cases (25%). Sheath sizes ranged from 9F to 20F, with an average of 16F, and closure was achieved using the preclose technique. Postprocedure chemoprophylaxis was administered to 85% of patients (n = 44) during their hospitalization. Median length of stay was 1 day. Acute DVT was identified in 8% of patients (n = 4) on postoperative day 1. Among the 4 DVTs, 25% were femoropopliteal (n = 1) and 75% were calf vein DVTs (n = 3). On follow-up imaging 2 weeks later, 75% of DVTs were resolved. Among the four patients with acute DVT on postoperative day 1, three had associated risk factors: history of DVT (n = 2), active smokers (n = 1), and obesity (body mass index >30; n = 3). The remaining patient had no risk factors but developed an ipsilateral calf vein DVT.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of acute DVT after PEVAR is low. Lower extremity venous duplex ultrasound screening is not necessary unless there exist preclinical risk factors or postprocedural clinical indications suggestive of DVT.

Predictors and treatments of Proglide-related complications in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair

Purpose

To investigate the predictors and treatment of the 6-Fr Perclose Proglide-related complications (PRC) in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (pEVAR).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the PRC after pEVAR for the treatment of aortic aneurysm or dissection in our center from December 2012 to November 2013. Procedure success was defined as effective functioning of the two devices and local hemostasis. Access-related adverse events included vascular complications and device failures. Operative data and angiographic and computed tomography images were collected to assess the complications and treatment strategy.

Results

A total of 198 patients with 275 puncture sites underwent pEVAR with the 6-Fr Perclose Proglide. The procedure was successful in 178 patients (89.9%), whereas PRC occurred in 20 cases (10.1%), including 10 device failures and 10 vascular complications. An extra manual ancillary compression was conducted in 7 patients, one more device was used in 8 patients, and surgical repair of the femoral artery was performed in 5 patients. PRC had a tendency to occur in patients with body mass index (BMI)>30 kg/m² (p = 0.021), thoracic stent grafts (p = 0.038), common femoral artery (CFA) calcification (p = 0.001), CFA depth>4 cm (p = 0.001), and sheath size>20Fr (p = 0.005). Device failure-related mortality was zero. None of the access sites had complications during the midterm follow-up.

Conclusions

The pre-close technique with 6-Fr Perclose Proglide devices for pEVAR appears to be safe and effective with low technical failure and complication rates. Careful patient selection and proficiency in device manipulation might reduce the device related complications.

Percutaneous versus femoral cutdown access for endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Prior studies suggest that percutaneous access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (pEVAR) offers significant operative and postoperative benefits compared with femoral cutdown (cEVAR). National data on this topic, however, are limited. We compared patient selection and outcomes for elective pEVAR and cEVAR.

METHODS

We identified all patients undergoing either pEVAR (bilateral percutaneous access, whether successful or not) or cEVAR (at least one planned groin cutdown) for abdominal aortic aneurysms from January 2011 to December 2013 in the Targeted Vascular data set from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Emergent cases, ruptures, cases with an iliac conduit, and cases with a preoperative wound infection were excluded. Groups were compared by χ(2) test or t-test or the Mann-Whitney test where appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 4112 patients undergoing elective EVAR, 3004 cEVAR patients (73%) and 1108 pEVAR patients (27%). Of all EVAR patients, 26% had bilateral percutaneous access; 1.0% had attempted percutaneous access converted to cutdown (4% of pEVARs); and the remainder had a planned cutdown, 63.9% bilateral and 9.1% unilateral. There were no significant differences in age, gender, aneurysm diameter, or prior open abdominal surgery. Patients undergoing cEVAR were less likely to have congestive heart failure (1.5% vs 2.4%; P = .04) but more likely to undergo any concomitant procedure during surgery (32% vs 26%; P < .01) than patients undergoing pEVAR. Postoperatively, pEVAR patients had shorter operative time (mean, 135 vs 152 minutes; P < .01), shorter length of stay (median, 1 day vs 2 days; P < .01), and fewer wound complications (2.1% vs 1.0%; P = .02). On multivariable analysis, the only predictor of percutaneous access failure was performance of any concomitant procedure (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.0; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, one in four patients treated at Targeted Vascular National Surgical Quality Improvement Program centers are getting pEVAR, which is associated with a high success rate, shorter operation time, shorter length of stay, and fewer wound complications compared with cEVAR.

A single-centre experience of 200 consecutive unselected patients in percutaneous EVAR

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (P-EVAR) in an "unselected" population of patients using Prostar XL closure device, comparing our results with the literature data reported for open EVAR (O-EVAR) and P-EVAR in selected populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 200 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms to be treated with the P-EVAR procedure, without any selection criteria. Four hundred percutaneous femoral accesses using the Prostar XL closure device were performed. The early follow-up protocol consisted of a Doppler ultrasound (US) examination. Later evaluations were performed with US and computed tomography.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all percutaneous accesses (100 %). Ten early complications related to access site were recorded (10/400; 2.5 %): four pseudoaneurysms and six cases of lower limb ischaemia. Five of ten complications occurred in patients presenting calcification of the common femoral arteries, whereas 4/10 were in patients with "complex" groin anatomy. Eight of ten complications occurred at the access site of the main body of the prosthesis using a sheath size >20 Fr.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair in "unselected" patients is safe and efficient, with a very low risk of access-related complications, comparable to P-EVAR in selected populations and to the best O-EVAR series.

A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial)

OBJECTIVE

The first multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed and conducted to assess the safety and effectiveness of totally percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) with use of a 21F endovascular stent graft system and either an 8 F or 10 F suture-mediated closure system (the PEVAR trial, NCT01070069). A noninferiority trial design was chosen to compare percutaneous access with standard open femoral exposure.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2012, 20 U.S. institutions participated in a prospective, Food and Drug Administration-approved randomized trial to evaluate percutaneous femoral artery access and closure by a "preclose" technique in conjunction with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. A total of 151 patients were allocated by a 2:1 design to percutaneous access/closure (n = 101) or open femoral exposure (n = 50 [FE]). PEVAR procedures were performed with either the 8 F Perclose ProGlide (n = 50 [PG]) or the 10 F Prostar XL (n = 51 [PS]) closure devices. All endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures were performed with the Endologix 21 F profile (outer diameter) sheath-based system. Patients were screened by computed tomography with three-dimensional reconstruction and independent physician review for anatomic suitability and adequate femoral artery anatomy for percutaneous access. The primary trial end point (treatment success) was defined as procedural technical success and absence of major adverse events and vascular complications at 30 days. An independent access closure substudy evaluated major access-related complications. Clinical utility and procedural outcomes, ankle-brachial index, blood laboratory analyses, and quality of life were also evaluated with continuing follow-up to 6 months.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar among groups. Procedural technical success was 94% (PG), 88% (PS), and 98% (FE). One-month primary treatment success was 88% (PG), 78% (PS), and 78% (FE), demonstrating noninferiority vs FE for PG (P = .004) but not for PS (P = .102). Failure rates in the access closure substudy analyses demonstrated noninferiority of PG (6%; P = .005), but not of PS (12%; P = .100), vs FE (10%). Compared with FE, PG and PS yielded significantly shorter times to hemostasis and procedure completion and favorable trends in blood loss, groin pain, and overall quality of life. Initial noninferiority test results persist to 6 months, and no aneurysm rupture, conversion to open repair, device migration, or stent graft occlusion occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Among trained operators, PEVAR with an adjunctive preclose technique using the ProGlide closure device is safe and effective, with minimal access-related complications, and it is noninferior to standard open femoral exposure. Training, experience, and careful application of the preclose technique are of paramount importance in ensuring successful, sustainable outcomes.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm-repair devices

Traditional open aneurysm repair is associated with significant perioperative morbidity. The development of abdominal aneurysm-repair devices has provided a minimally invasive alternative to open repairs. The field of aneurysm-repair devices is burgeoning since the approval of the first device in 1999. A clear perioperative survival advantage and lower perioperative morbidity has been reported by multiple studies. In addition to benefiting the normal risk aortic aneurysm patient, this new technology is making the repair of aneurysms in older patients with high operative risk factors possible. Modifications to devices are introduced rapidly to overcome anatomical limitations and to improve on device-related complications such as endoleaks and migration. Limited long-term outcomes are available for newer devices, and life-long surveillance is still recommended for all patients. Patient selection and preoperative planning are the cornerstones to successful endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

The preclose technique in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To establish the efficacy and safety of the preclose technique in total percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of Medline database was conducted for series on PEVAR published between January 1999 and January 2012.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles comprising 2,257 patients and 3,606 arterial accesses were included. Anatomical criteria used to exclude patients from undergoing PEVAR were not uniform across all series. The technical success rate was 94 % per arterial access. Failure was unilateral in the majority (93 %) of the 133 failed PEVAR cases. The groin complication rate in PEVAR was 3.6 %; a minority (1.6 %) of these groin complications required open surgery. The groin complication rate in failed PEVAR cases converted to groin cutdown was 6.1 %. A significantly higher technical success rate was achieved when arterial access was performed via ultrasound guidance. Technical failure rate was significantly higher with larger sheath size (≥20F).

CONCLUSION

The preclose technique in PEVAR has a high technical success rate and a low groin complication rate. Technical success tends to increase with ultrasound-guided arterial access and decrease with larger access. When failure occurs, it is unilateral in the majority of cases, and conversion to surgical cutdown does not appear to increase the operative risk.

Safety and Efficacy of the Prostar XL Vascular Closing Device for Percutaneous Closure of Large Arterial Access Sites

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Prostar XL device for percutaneous large access site closure in an unselected patient and operator collective. Materials and Methods. All patients (n = 50) who had received percutaneous vascular closing with the Prostar XL device in our institution with follow-up data of at least 6 months were retrospectively included. Primary (freedom from surgical conversion) and continued (freedom from groin surgery in further course) technical success and major (deviations from expected outcome requiring surgery) and minor (other deviations from expected outcome) complications were assessed. Success and complications rates were correlated with delivery system size (Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Tests) and operator experience (paired samples t-test). Results. Rates of primary and continued technical success as well as major and minor complications were 93.6%, 89.7%, 10.3%, and 10.3% (groin based) and 90.0%, 84.0%, 16.0%, and 16.0% (patient based), respectively. No correlation of success and complications rate was found with delivery system sizes and operator experience. Conclusions. Application of the Prostar XL device for percutaneous closure of large arterial access sites is safe with a relatively high rate of technical success and low rate of major complications. Sizes of the delivery systems and the experience of the operator did not influence the results.