Predictors of percutaneous access failure requiring open femoral surgical conversion during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

Analysis of Determinants for Suture-mediated Closure Device Failure During EVAR Procedures

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for elective and emergency infrarenal aortic pathologies is the primary approach for treatment nowadays. During such procedure, the suture-mediated closure device (SMCD) (Perclose ProGlideTM, Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) is commonly used. This study aimed to identify potential contributors for SMCD failure in a patient cohort of elective and emergency EVAR.

METHODS

Archived medical records from patients who underwent EVAR for aortic pathologies in elective and emergency setting at the University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany were included. Patient's co-morbidities, access vessel morphologies and hemostasis-related blood parameters were evaluated on their association with SMCD failure applying different statistical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients (139 femoral accesses) was included. The mean age was 73.5 ± 8.4 years. Overall SMCD failure rate was 4.3%, 4.1% for elective and 5.9% for emergency cases, respectively. Total procedure time was longer for the SMCD failure group (323 ± 117.8 min vs 171 ± 43.7 min). The calcification status of the common femoral artery (CFA), the diameter of the aortic bifurcation, and dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) on the medication plan prior to the procedure were associated with SMCD failure. Univariate binary logistic regression analysis nominated several potentially relevant predictors for SMCD failure who underwent subsequent multivariable binary logistic regression analysis. Here, DAPT on the medication plan was identified as being promising in predicting SMCD failure (OR 30.5), while anterior plaque formation in the CFA maintained as only statistically relevant determinant (OR 44.9).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the CFA calcification status to be associated with SMCD failure. Although discontinued prior to endovascular treatment, DAPT was also found to be associated with SMCD failure. Our results may advocate to perform obligatory platelet testing prior to EVAR to maximize patient safety.

Mixed reality for the assessment of aortoiliac anatomy in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm prior to open and endovascular repair: Feasibility and interobserver agreement

OBJECTIVES

The objective is to evaluate the feasibility and interobserver agreement of a Mixed Reality Viewer (MRV) in the assessment of aortoiliac vascular anatomy of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients.

METHODS

Fifty preoperative computed tomography angiographies (CTAs) of AAA patients were included. CTAs were assessed in a mixed reality (MR) environment with respect to aortoiliac anatomy according to a standardized protocol by two experienced observers (Mixed Reality Viewer, MRV, Brainlab AG, Germany). Additionally, all CTAs were independently assessed applying the same protocol by the same observers using a conventional DICOM viewer on a two-dimensional screen with multi-planar reconstructions (Conventional viewer, CV, GE Centricity PACS RA1000 Workstation, GE, United States). The protocol included four sets of items: calcification, dilatation, patency, and tortuosity as well as the number of lumbar and renal arteries. Interobserver agreement (IA, Cohen's Kappa, κ) was calculated for every item set.

RESULTS

All CTAs could successfully be displayed in the MRV (100%). The MRV demonstrated equal or better IA in the assessment of anterior and posterior calcification (κMRV: 0.68 and 0.61, κCV: 0.33 and 0.45, respectively) as well as tortuosity (κMRV: 0.60, κCV: 0.48) and dilatation (κMRV: 0.68, κCV: 0.67). The CV demonstrated better IA in the assessment of patency (κMRV: 0.74, κCV: 0.93). The CV also identified significantly more lumbar arteries (CV: 379, MRV: 239, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The MRV is a feasible imaging viewing technology in clinical routine. Future efforts should aim at improving hologram quality and enabling accurate registration of the hologram with the physical patient.

Comparison of percutaneous and cutdown access‑related minor complications after endovascular aortic repair

The aim of the present study was to compare the open surgical and percutaneous access for thoracic/endovascular aortic repair (T/EVAR) regarding in-hospital and post-hospital minor-complications. Percutaneous (pEVAR) and cutdown (cEVAR) techniques for femoral vessel access for T/EVAR were compared regarding their minor complications. The basic population of this retrospective cohort study consisted of 44 percutaneous and 215 cutdown accesses for endovascular aortic repair (T/EVAR-procedure) conducted between August 2008 and October 2019. The primary outcome consisted of conservatively treatable minor complications until hospital discharge and during follow up. Secondary outcomes comprised postoperative pain and complications requiring invasive treatment. Minor complications were observed in 11.4% (pEVAR) vs. 9% (cEVAR) of cases throughout index hospital stay and 10 vs. 13.7% during follow-up. No significant differences were noticed regarding overall complication rate between pEVAR and cEVAR. Only bleedings treatable through compression occurred significantly more often in the pEVAR-group (6.8 vs. 0.5%; P=0.02). In conclusions, the percutaneous technique represents a safe and quickly executable alternative to cutdown access. A significant difference in overall minor complications could not be observed. In both techniques, complications may occur even months after surgery. In order to demonstrate the superiority of the percutaneous technique compared with cutdown access, possible predictors for the use of the percutaneous technique should be defined in the future.

Comparison of Early Efficacy of the Percutaneous Presuture Technique with the Femoral Artery Incision Technique in Endovascular Aortic Repair under Local Anesthesia for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

Objective

To compare the efficacy of the percutaneous presuture technique (PPST) and the femoral artery incision technique (FAIT) under local anesthesia in the treatment of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD).

Method

Two hundred and ninety-five patients diagnosed with uTBAD who underwent EVAR under local anesthesia from June 2017 to December 2021 were consecutively and randomly selected for retrospective analysis. The PPST was performed in 178 cases and the FAIT was performed in 117 cases. The clinical characteristics and surgical and postoperative data from the two groups were analyzed.

Results

There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operative time of the PPST group was significantly shorter than that of the FAIT group (46 (33, 58) versus 72 (67.5, 78.0) minutes, p < 0.001), as was the operative approach procedure time (6 (4.5, 9.0) versus 38 (36.5, 43.5) minutes, p < 0.001), and length of postoperative hospital stay (5.19 ± 2.26 versus 8.33 ± 3.76 days, p < 0.001). There were fewer postoperative approach-related procedural complications in the PPST group than in the FAIT group (2 versus 12, p < 0.001); similarly, the average frequency of postoperative wound disinfection was significantly lower in the PPST group (1.08 ± 0.39 versus 3.31 ± 0.91 times, p < 0.05). Obesity was identified as an independent risk factor for postoperative approach-related procedural complications (OR, 22.26; 95% CI, 4.74–104.49; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The PPST has comparable safety and efficacy to the FAIT in EVAR under local anesthesia. It can shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce operation time, lower the risk of wound-related complications, reduce the frequency of postoperative wound disinfection, and hasten postoperative recovery. It can therefore be used as a first-line surgical technique in EVAR of uTBAD under local anesthesia, especially in obese patients.

The effect of percutaneouS vs. cutdoWn accEss in patients after Endovascular aorTic repair (SWEET): Study protocol for a single-blind, single-center, randomized controlled trial

Background

Endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have become the first-line treatment for aortic diseases, but current evidence is uncertain regarding whether a percutaneous approach has better outcomes than cutdown access, especially for patient-centered outcomes (PCOs). This study is designed to compare these outcomes of percutaneous access vs. cutdown access after endovascular aortic repair.

Method

The SWEET study is a randomized, controlled, single-blind, single-center non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups in two cohorts respectively. After eligibility screening, subjects who meet the inclusion criteria will be divided into Cohort EVAR or Cohort TEVAR according to clinic interviews. And then participants in two cohorts will be randomly allocated to either intervention groups receiving percutaneous access endovascular repair or controlled groups receiving cutdown access endovascular repair separately. Primary clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) is access-related complication, and primary patient-centered outcome (PCO) is time back to normal life. Follow-up will be conducted at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months postoperatively.

Discussion

The choice of either percutaneous or cutdown access may not greatly affect the success of EVAR or TEVAR procedures, but can influence the quality of life and patient-centered experience. Given the very low evidence for ClinROs and few data for PCOs, comparison of the percutaneous vs. cutdown access EVAR and TEVAR is essential for both patient-centered care and clinical decision making in endovascular aortic repair.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053161 (registered on 13th November, 2021).

Mini-surgical access prevents local complications and reduces costs in endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

This study aims to propose a minimally invasive surgical approach to the common femoral artery in endovascular aortic repair and assess its value by a single-center retrospective study including 118 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2017 and 2022, all patients receiving endovascular treatment for thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms in our Center had the anterior wall of the common femoral artery exposed, through a 2- 3cm transverse groin incision, instead of a complete surgical cut-down. We access the artery with a purse-string suture, held tight with a tourniquet. After procedure completion, we tie the purse-string closing the arteriotomy. We retrospectively analyzed the cohort of all consecutive patients treated with endovascular aortic repair in this period and recorded primary and assisted technical success, operative time, in-hospital length of stay, access failure, and access-related complications, comparing the results with the current literature.

RESULTS

All procedures were successful, with no perioperative mortality. Primary technical success was achieved in 116 patients: two required adjunctive procedures. No access failure or access-related complications (thrombosis, groin hematoma, lymphocele, wound dehiscence, or infection) occurred. Two accesses required conversion to complete femoral artery exposure and endarterectomy. Operatory time and length of in-hospital stay were comparable to the outcomes of the major studies reporting on percutaneous access, saving the costs of the closure devices.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgical access is safe and feasible for endovascular aortic procedures. Compared to the costs of percutaneous access found in literature, it is cost-effective. It can be chosen whenever the percutaneous approach is not feasible or at high risk of complications.

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.

CT angiography for the assessment of EVAR complications: a pictorial review

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a minimally invasive treatment proposed as an alternative to open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. EVAR consists in a stent-graft placement within the aorta in order to exclude the aneurysm from arterial circulation and reduce the risk of rupture. Knowledge of the various types of devices is mandatory because some stents/grafts are more frequently associated with complications. CT angiography is the gold standard diagnostic technique for preprocedural planning and postprocedural surveillance. EVAR needs long-term follow-up due to the high rate of complications. Complications can be divided in endograft device-related and systemic complications. The purpose of this article is to review the CT imaging findings of EVAR complications and the key features for the diagnosis.

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.

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.

A Single Center Study of ProGlide Used for Closure of Large-Bore Puncture Holes After EVAR for AAA

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the primary and assisted secondary percutaneous and non-invasive technical success of the ProGlide device on all-comers in a consecutive case series of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (P-EVAR).

METHOD

A single-center consecutive case series where 434 elective and acute P-EVAR procedures were registered prospectively between May 2011 and July 2017. The mean age was 74.5 years ± SD 11.4 years. 82.3% of the patients were male. All patients were pre-planned from CT angiography. Percutaneous access punctures, performed in local anesthesia in the common femoral artery, with a final introducer size between 12-22 Fr OD were included and stratified in 2 groups, 12-16 Fr and 17-22 Fr.

RESULTS

By screening 868 access groins 22 groins were excluded. Of the remaining 846 groins, intended to be treated with ProGlide, 9 groins were excluded peri-procedurally and treated with the Fascia Suture Technique or surgical cutdown. The remaining 837 groins had access closure with ProGlide, with a mean value of 2.15 devices per groin with a slight significant difference between the 2 stratification groups. Primary ProGlide technical success was achieved in 68.1% of the groins. Secondary percutaneous or non-invasive technical success was achieved in 96.9%. Here there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 stratification groups. Thirty-one (3.7%) groin complications were registered during 30-day follow-up and 17 required additional treatment. Total mortality was 2.8%. None of these deaths were related to the access site.

CONCLUSION

ProGlide by itself has a significant failure rate in the closure of large-bore access holes on an unselected cohort of patients eligible for P-EVAR. However, together with adjunct percutaneous or non-invasive methods a success rate of 97% can be achieved. The access complication rate was lower than 4% at 30-day follow-up.

Editor's Choice - Percutaneous Access Does Not Confer Superior Clinical Outcomes Over Cutdown Access for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a percutaneous approach has better clinical outcomes than surgical access for standard endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Embase were searched using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared percutaneous and cutdown endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were considered. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR), risk difference, or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method was used as appropriate. Trial sequential analysis was performed to quantify the available evidence and control for the risk of type 1 and type 2 error. Risk of bias was assessed with the revised tool developed by Cochrane and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE system (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

RESULTS

Four RCTs were identified, reporting a total of 368 patients and 530 access sites. Meta-analysis showed no difference in access site complications or infection, post-operative bleeding/haematoma, access related arterial injury, femoral artery occlusion, pseudo-aneurysm, or peri-operative mortality between percutaneous and cutdown EVAR. Seroma/lymphorrhoea was significantly less frequent after percutaneous EVAR (0%) compared with cutdown EVAR (3%; OR 0.18 [95% CI 0.04-0.83]) and the procedure time was significantly shorter (MD -11.53 minutes; 95% CI -15.71-7.34), but hospital length of stay was not different between treatments. Neither the O'Brien-Fleming boundaries nor the futility boundaries were crossed by the cumulative Z curve, and the required information size was not reached for any of the outcomes. All trials were judged to be high risk of bias or have some concerns, and the level of the body of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of percutaneous EVAR on clinically important outcomes.

Comparing and Correlating Outcomes between Open and Percutaneous Access in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Aortic Aneurysms Using a Retrospective Cohort Study Design

Objective

This retrospective cohort study is aimed at determining the safety and efficacy between Femoral Open-Cutdown access and Percutaneous access with Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) by contrasting perioperative complication rates. We hypothesized that the percutaneous approach is a better alternative for aortic aneurysm patients as it is minimally invasive and has been demonstrated to decrease the length of hospital stay.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data for patients undergoing EVAR between the years of 2005 and 2013. We then compared overall mortality, hematoma or seroma formation, graft infection, arterio-venous injury, distal embolization, limb loss, myocardial infarction or arrhythmia, and renal dysfunction. Results were demonstrated using a retrospective cohort study design to confirm the hematoma rate associated with EVAR open compared to percutaneous access.

Results

Our series involves 73 patients who underwent percutaneous access for EVAR (n = 49) or traditional open cutdown (n = 24). Percutaneous access resulted in significantly less hematoma formation when compared to the traditional open cutdown (4% vs. 12.5%; p < 0.059). Our analysis suggests decreased mortality rates associated with EVAR as compared to the Open-Cutdown method using Northside Medical Center's Study and the OVER Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study (p = 0.0053).

Conclusion

Percutaneous access for EVAR is safe and effective when compared to Open-Cutdown access for aortic aneurysm patients. Percutaneous access was associated with decreased rates of in-hospital mortality, hematoma formation, graft infection, and respiratory failure.

The long-term implications of access complications during endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Access issues are one of the most common complications of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, contemporary rates as well as risk factors for complications and the subsequent impact of access complications on mortality are poorly described.

METHODS

We studied all EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms without prior aortic surgery in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2011 and 2018. We studied factors associated with access complications (thrombosis, embolus, wound infection, hematoma, and conversion to cutdown), as well as the interaction with female sex and the impact on survival using multilevel logistic regression and propensity weighting. Multiple imputation was used for missing data.

RESULTS

There were 33,951 EVAR during the study period (91% elective, 9% symptomatic); most cases (70%) involved an attempt at percutaneous access on at least one side, with 30% bilateral cutdowns and 0.1% iliac conduits. There were 1553 patients (4.6%) who experienced at least one access complication. Access complications were almost twice as common in female patients (7.5% vs 3.9%; P < .001). The factors associated with access complications included female sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.6; P < .001), age (OR, 1.05 per 5 years; 95% CI, 1.02-1.1; P < .01), aortouni-iliac device (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P < .01), smoking (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7; P < .01), body mass index of less than 16 (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5; P = .001), dual antiplatelet therapy (1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.6 P = .03), prior infrainguinal bypass (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7; P < .01), and beta blocker use (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.03-1.4; P = .02). Conversion from percutaneous access to open cutdown was associated with higher rates of complications than planned open cutdown (8.6% vs 2.9%; P < .001). In propensity-weighted analysis, percutaneous access was associated with significantly lower odds of access complications in women (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.96; P = .03). Patients who experienced an access complication had more than four times the odds of perioperative death (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.5-7.1; P < .001), and a 60% higher risk of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1; P = .001). In addition to death, patients with access site complications had higher rates of other major complications, including reoperation during the index hospitalization (19% vs 1.2%; P < .001), myocardial infarction (3.5% vs 0.7%; P < .001), stroke (0.8% vs 0.2%; P < .001), acute kidney injury (12% vs 3%; P < .001), and reintubation (5.7% vs 0.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although access complications are infrequent in the current era, they are associated with both perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality. Female patients in particular are at high risk of access complications, but may benefit from percutaneous access.

Effect of obesity on radiation exposure, quality of life scores, and outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of obesity on procedural metrics, radiation exposure, quality of life (QOL), and clinical outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data from 334 patients (236 men; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study to evaluate FB-EVAR from 2013 to 2019. The patients were classified using the body mass index (BMI) as obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) or nonobese (BMI <30 kg/m²). QOL questionnaires (short-form 36-item questionnaire) and imaging studies were obtained preoperatively and at 2 months and 6 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter. The procedures were performed using two different fixed imaging systems. The end points included procedural metrics (ie, total operative time, fluoroscopic time, contrast volume), radiation exposure, technical success, 30-day mortality, and major adverse events, QOL changes, freedom from target vessel instability, freedom from reintervention, and patient survival.

RESULTS

The aneurysm extent was a pararenal aortic aneurysm in 117 patients (35%) and a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in 217 patients (65%). Both groups had similar demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent, except for a greater incidence of hyperlipidemia and diabetes among the obese patients (P < .05). No significant differences were found in the procedural metrics or intraprocedural complications between the groups, except that the obese patients had greater radiation exposure than the nonobese patients (mean, 2.5 vs 1.6 Gy; P < .001), with the highest radiation exposure in those obese patients who had undergone the procedure using system 1 (fusion alone) instead of system 2 (fusion and digital zoom; mean, 4.1 vs 1.5 Gy; P < .001). Three patients had died within 30 days (0.8%), with no difference in mortality or major adverse events between the groups. The mental QOL scores had improved in the obese group at 2 and 12 months compared with the nonobese patients, with persistently higher scores up to 3 years. At 3 years, the obese and nonobese patients had a similar incidence of freedom from target vessel instability (74% ± 6% vs 80% ± 3%; P = .99, log-rank test), freedom from reintervention (66% ± 6% vs 73% ± 4%; P = .77, log-rank test), and patient survival (83% ± 5% vs 75% ± 4%; P = .16, log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

FB-EVAR was performed with high technical success and low mortality and morbidity, with no significant differences between the obese and nonobese patients. The procedural metrics and outcomes were similar, with the exception of greater radiation exposure among obese patients, especially for the procedures performed using system 1 with fusion alone compared with system 2 (fusion and digital zoom). Obese patients had higher QOL mental scores at 2 and 12 months, with a similar reintervention rate, target vessel outcomes, and survival compared with nonobese patients.

Access Type for Endovascular Repair in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Does Not Affect Major Morbidity or Mortality

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on access type when treating ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Our study's objective was to evaluate if the type of access in ruptured AAAs affected outcomes.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2009 to 2018 for all ruptured AAAs treated with an index EVAR. Procedures were grouped by access type: percutaneous, open, and failed percutaneous that converted to open access. Patients with iliac access, both percutaneous and open access, and concurrent bypass were excluded. Baseline characteristics, procedure details, and outcomes were collected. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There were 1,206 ruptured AAAs identified-739 (61.3%) was performed by percutaneous access, 416 (34.5%) by open access, and 51 (4.2%) by failed percutaneous that converted to open access. Percutaneous access, compared with open access and failed percutaneous access, respectively, had the shortest operative time (min, median) (111 vs. 138 vs. 180, P < 0.001) and was most often performed under local anesthesia (16.7% vs. 5% vs. 9.8%, P < 0.001). The amount of contrast used was similar between the approaches. Univariable analysis comparing percutaneous access, open access, and failed percutaneous access showed differences in 30-day mortality (19.9% vs. 24.8% vs. 39.2%, P = 0.002), postoperative complications (33.7% vs. 40.2% vs. 54%, P = 0.003), and cardiac complications (18.2% vs. 19.8% vs. 34.7%, P = 0.018). However, multivariable analysis did not show access type to have a significant effect on cardiac complications, pulmonary complications, any complications, return to the operating room, or perioperative mortality. Open access was independently associated with a prolonged length of stay (means ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.33, P = 0.012). Factors independently associated with failed percutaneous were prior bypass (odds ratio (OR) 9.77, 95% CI 2.44-39.16, P = 0.001) and altered mental status (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.17-5.15, P = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Access type for ruptured AAAs was not independently associated with major morbidity or mortality but did have a differential effect on length of stay. Access during these emergent procedures should be based on surgeon preference and experience.

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.

Protamine use in transfemoral carotid artery stenting is not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events

BACKGROUND

Protamine use in carotid endarterectomy has been shown to be associated with fewer perioperative bleeding complications without higher rates of thromboembolic events. However, the effect of protamine use on complications after transfemoral carotid artery stenting (CAS) is unclear, and concerns remain about thromboembolic events.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for patients undergoing transfemoral CAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to December 2018. We assessed in-hospital outcomes using propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who did and did not receive protamine. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Secondary outcomes included bleeding complications, stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure exacerbation. Bleeding complications were categorized as bleeding resulting in intervention or blood transfusions.

RESULTS

Of the 17,429 patients undergoing transfemoral CAS, 2697 (15%) patients received protamine. We created 2300 propensity score-matched pairs of patients who did and did not receive protamine. There were no statistically significant differences in stroke or death between the two cohorts (protamine, 2.5%; no protamine, 2.9%; relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.21; P = .37). Protamine use was not associated with statistically significant differences in perioperative bleeding complications resulting in interventional treatment (0.9% vs 0.5%; RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.99-4.46; P = .05) or blood transfusion (1.2% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53-1.61; P = .78). There were also no statistically significant differences for the individual outcomes of stroke (1.8% vs 2.3%; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52-1.16; P = .22), death (0.9% vs 0.8%; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.62-2.19; P = .63), transient ischemic attack (1.4% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.67-1.82; P = .70), myocardial infarction (0.5% vs 0.4%; RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.52-2.78; P = .67), or heart failure exacerbation (1.0% vs 0.9%; RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.58-1.90; P = .88). Protamine use in patients presenting with symptomatic carotid stenosis was associated with lower risk of stroke or death (3.0% vs 4.3%; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-0.998; P = .048), whereas there were no statistically significant differences in stroke or death with protamine use in asymptomatic patients (1.6% vs 1.0%; RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.67-3.92; P = .28).

CONCLUSIONS

Heparin reversal with protamine after transfemoral CAS is not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events, and its use in symptomatic carotid disease is associated with a lower risk of stroke or death.

Feasibility and safety of total percutaneous closure of femoral arterial access sites after veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of total percutaneous closure of the femoral artery access site after veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with the Perclose ProGlide device.This retrospective observational study during an almost 2-year period included 21 patients who underwent VA-ECMO in whom the femoral artery puncture site was closed percutaneously with Perclose ProGlide devices. Technical success was defined as successful arterial closure of the common femoral artery, without the need for additional surgical or endovascular procedures. Access site complications were recorded at 24 hours and 30 days after arterial closure, such as major bleeding requiring transfusion or surgical intervention, minor bleeding, groin infection, pseudoaneurysm, and lymphocele.Technical success was achieved in 20 patients (95.2%). One patient required surgical repair for an access site pseudoaneurysm. Eighteen femoral arteries were closed with 2 devices each, while 3 patients required the use of a third device for femoral artery access site closure to achieve adequate hemostasis. No arterial thrombosis, arterial dissection, arterial stenosis, groin infection, or arteriovenous fistula occurred during the periprocedural period (within 24 hours of arterial closure) or during 30-day follow-up.Percutaneous closure with the Perclose ProGlide device is a feasible procedure for closing femoral arterial access sites after VA-ECMO, with a low incidence of access site complications.

Preoperative risk score for access site failure in ultrasound-guided percutaneous aortic procedures

OBJECTIVE

The factors associated with access site failure after ultrasound-guided percutaneous access for aortic endograft procedures remain poorly characterized. We developed a prediction model to risk stratify patients for access site failure.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective institutional review of consecutive patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR), or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) from 2014 to 2016. We excluded patients undergoing direct aortic access through sternotomy and patients treated with physician-modified endografts, given reporting restrictions. Our primary outcome was groin access site failure, which included bleeding and thrombosis. An 8-point risk model was created for access site failure using multivariable fractional polynomials and internally validated using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

We identified 469 femoral arteries from 247 patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair procedures (EVAR, 75%; FEVAR, 8.0%; TEVAR, 17%). Surgeons performed percutaneous access in 97.2% of the femoral arteries, with 99.6% ultrasound use. Twenty-seven (5.9%) access site failures occurred (17 bleeding, 10 thrombosis), all treated with groin cutdown, for a successful percutaneous femoral artery access rate of 94%. Of the 215 patients with attempted bilateral percutaneous access, 90% had successful bilateral access. However, FEVAR had lower rates of successful bilateral access (FEVAR, 78%; EVAR, 91%; TEVAR, 94%; P = .03). Factors independently associated with percutaneous access site failure were femoral artery outer wall diameter (per millimeter increase: odds ratio [OR], 0.003 [0.0002-0.1]; P < .001), femoral artery stenosis >50% (OR, 22.3 [2.7-183.2]; P < .01), and urgent/emergent intervention (OR, 3.6 [1.2-11.0]; P = .03). A risk prediction model based on these criteria produced a C statistic of 0.89, a Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit of 0.99, and a Brier score of 0.04. Excluding treatment for ruptured aneurysms, cutdown for access failure and planned initial groin cutdown resulted in longer postoperative lengths of stay and higher rates of access-related readmission, return to operating room, groin infection, and myocardial infarction compared with successful percutaneous access. There was no difference in major adverse events between planned initial groin cutdown and cutdown after failure; however, the small number of patients in these two comparison groups limits the statistical power to detect a difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous ultrasound-guided access can be safely performed in almost all patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures, but access site failures do occur. This risk score can help users select patients with high likelihood of success, identify patients who need close scrutiny with postclosure femoral duplex ultrasound, and provide patient guidance about risk of unplanned groin cutdown.

Fascial suture technique versus open femoral access for thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Fascial suture technique (FST) has proved to be a safe and effective access closure technique after endovascular repair of the abdominal aorta. FST has not yet been investigated for closure of large-bore access after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The aim of this study was to compare FST with open femoral access in terms of access safety, hemostasis efficacy, and reintervention rate after TEVAR.

METHODS

A retrospective study including consecutive patients undergoing TEVAR with either FST or open femoral access between January 2010 and April 2016 was undertaken. Exclusion criteria included the use of closure devices. The composite primary end point was defined as any access-related complication (bleeding, femoral artery stenosis or occlusion, pseudoaneurysm, and wound infection) during 30 postoperative days. Preoperative and procedural variables were examined in a multiple logistic regression model as potential associated factors with access morbidity. All access vessels were postoperatively examined by clinical examination and computed tomography angiography before discharge as well as during the follow-up period. In case of suspected pseudoaneurysm, additional duplex ultrasound and computed tomography angiography confirmed the diagnosis.

RESULTS

From a total of 206 patients undergoing TEVAR, 109 (53%) had FST, whereas 93 (45%) had an open femoral access. Four patients were excluded: closure device was used in one; one had primary conversion after percutaneous puncture without FST; and in two, no data were available about the femoral access. The access complication rate was higher in FST (FST, 14 [13%]; open access, 3 [3%]; P = .01). Five (4.6%) patients needed early reintervention, two for bleeding and three for vessel occlusion. Seven (6.4%) pseudoaneurysms were detected during the 30-day period in the FST group; three had successful exclusion with thrombin injection, one was treated with manual compression, one was treated with open repair, and two were managed conservatively. Four (3.6%) patients in the FST group and three (3%) patients in the open access group had wound complications. After multiple logistic regression, FST was the only independent factor for any access complication (odds ratio, 5.176; 95% confidence interval, 1.402-19.114; P = .014). During follow-up, neither new pseudoaneurysm nor stenosis or occlusion was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

FST for large-hole closure had higher risk for any access complication compared with open access in TEVAR during the 30-day postoperative period. No other complications during 12 months of follow-up were observed in FST patients.

Complications and Reinterventions After Fenestrated and Branched EVAR in Patients with Paravisceral and Thoracoabdominal Aneurysms

The application of endovascular strategies to treat aneurysms involving the abdominal and thoracoabdominal aorta has evolved significantly since the inception of endovascular aneurysm repair. Advances in endograft technology and operator experience have enabled the management of a wider spectrum of challenging aortic anatomy. Fenestrated endovascular and branched endovascular aneurysm repair represent two technical innovations, which have expanded endovascular treatment options to include patients with paravisceral and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Although similar in many ways to standard aortic endografts, fenestrated and branched endografts have specific short- and long-term complications due to their unique modular endograft design and their sophisticated deployment mechanisms. This article aims to examine the commonly encountered complications with these devices and the endovascular reintervention strategies.

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.

Totally Percutaneous Access Using Perclose Proglide for Endovascular Treatment of Aortic Diseases

Objective

To evaluate our experience following the introduction of a percutaneous program for endovascular treatment of aortic diseases using Perclose Proglide® assessing efficacy, complications and identification of potential risk factors that could predict failure or major access site complications.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study during a two-year period was performed. All the patients submitted to totally percutaneous endovascular repair (PEVAR) of aortic diseases and transcatheter aortic valve implantation since we started the total percutaneous approach with the preclosure technique from November 2013 to December 2015 were included in the study. The primary endpoint was major ipsilateral access complication, defined according to PEVAR trial.

Results

In a cohort of 123 patients, immediate technical success was obtained in 121 (98.37%) patients, with only two (0.82%) cases in 242 vascular access sites that required intervention immediately after the procedure. Pairwise comparisons revealed increased major access complication among patients with >50% common femoral artery (CFA) calcification vs. none (P=0.004) and > 50% CFA calcification vs. < 50% CFA calcification (P=0.002). Small artery diameter (<6.5 mm) also increased major access complication compared to bigger diameters (> 6.5 mm) (P=0.027).

Conclusion

The preclosure technique with two Perclose Proglide® for PEVAR is safe and effective. Complications occur more often in patients with unfavorable access site anatomy and the success rate can be improved with proper patient selection.

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.

Predilation technique with balloon angioplasty to facilitate percutaneous groin access of large size sheath through scar tissue

Purpose

Percutaneous remote access for endovascular aortic repair is an advantageous alternative to open access. Previous surgery in the femoral region and the presence of synthetic vascular grafts in the femoral/iliac arteries represent major limitations to percutaneous remote access. The aim of this study was to evaluate an original technique used for enabling percutaneous remote access for thoracic or abdominal endovascular aortic repair in patients with scar tissue and/or a vascular graft in the groin.

Methods

Twenty-five consecutive patients with a thoracic (11/25; 44%) or an aortic aneurysm (14/25; 66%) and with a synthetic vascular graft in the groin (16/25; 64%) or a redo groin access (9/25; 36%) were managed through the percutaneous remote access. In all patients, a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloon was used to predilate the scar tissue and the femoral artery or the synthetic vascular graft after preclosing (ProGlide®; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). In 10 patients, requiring a 20 Fr sheath, a 6 mm percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloon was used; and in the remaining 15, requiring a 24 Fr sheath, an 8 mm percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloon. Preclosing was exclusively performed using ProGlide®. Mean follow-up was 15 months.

Results

In all cases, stent-graft deployment was successful. There was one surgical conversion (4%; 1/25) due to bleeding from a femoral anastomosis. Two cases required additional percutaneous maneuvers (postclosing with another system in one patient and endoluminal shielding with stent-graft in the other patient). No pseudoaneurysm or access complication occurred during the follow-up.

Conclusions

Percutaneous access in redo groins with scar tissue and/or synthetic vascular graft using ultrasound-guided punction, preclosing with ProGlide® system and predilation with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloon to introduce large size sheath as used for endovascular aortic repair showed to be feasible, safe and with few local complications.

Infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair: New developments and decision making in 2016

New developments in infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm stent-graft devices have made more patients eligible for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Recent US Food and Drug Administration approval for fenestrated endograft repair and impending approval for iliac branch devices extend the proximal and distal landing zones. Better deployment systems allow for partial deployment of endografts to facilitate repositioning, and more flexible designs allow for treatment of angulated infrarenal aneurysm necks and tortuous iliac arteries. New iterations of endografts have smaller delivery catheter diameters, which facilitate traversal of smaller access vessels. Long-term outcomes data are still accumulating and it remains to be seen whether EVAR for this expanded-indication abdominal aortic aneurysms anatomy has the same durability as standard EVAR. More options for repair also mean vascular surgeons must select the best EVAR device based on each patient's abdominal aortic aneurysm anatomy.

The Superficial Femoral Artery: An Alternative Access for Percutaneous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to report the results of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) using the superficial femoral artery (SFA) for large bore vessel access.

METHODS

We reviewed all PEVAR procedures at our institution over an 18-month period, identifying all patients who underwent PEVAR with the use of one or both SFAs for endograft delivery with dual ProGlide large bore access closure. Indications for use of the SFA instead of the common femoral artery (CFA) included morbid obesity, CFA vessel wall disease, and scarring from previous CFA surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 158 percutaneous access closures were performed in 79 patients. Ten patients had one or both SFAs used. We accessed a total of 13 SFAs: 6 for the endograft main body (size range 18- to 20-French) and 7 for the limb (14- to 16-French). The freedom from open conversion was 84.6%. In comparison, of 145 CFA accesses (in 76 patients) there were 9 conversions (93.7% success). Of the 13 SFAs accessed, there were no major access site complications (pseudoaneurysm, access site bleed, limb ischemia, or need to return to the operating room). All SFAs accessed remained patent at the latest follow-up (range 1-13 months, median 8 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary case series suggests that, in the absence of a healthy or percutaneously accessible CFA, a healthy SFA may be considered for PEVAR access. While likely carrying a higher risk of open conversion, this technique, when combined with intraoperative duplex ultrasound (both before and after the procedure) and with meticulous ultrasound-guided vascular access, appears safe for up to 20-French device diameters.

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.

24h and 30 day outcome of Perclose Proglide suture mediated vascular closure device: An Indian experience

Introduction

Advantages of vascular closure device over manual compression include patient comfort, early mobilisation and discharge, avoidance of interruption of anticoagulation, avoidance of local compression and its sequelae and less time constraint on staff. No published Indian data exist regarding Perclose Proglide suture mediated vascular closure device (SMC).

Aim

To study the 24 h and 30 day outcome of Perclose Proglide SMC retrospectively.

Study design

Retrospective observational study conducted in the Department of Cardiology, Government Medical College, Calicut, Kerala from June 2013 to June 2015.

Methodology

All consecutive patients with Perclose Proglide SMC deployment done by a single operator for achieving access site haemostasis where 24 h and 30 day post-procedure data were available were included. Major and minor complications, procedure success, device failure were predefined.

Results

323 patients were analysed. Procedure success rate was 99.7% (322/323). Transient oozing occurred in 44 patients (13.6%), minor and major complications occurred in 2% and 1.5% of patients respectively. Major complication included one case of retroperitoneal bleed, one access site infection, one pseudo aneurysm formation and two access site arterial stenosis. There was no death or complication requiring limb amputation. “Preclose” technique was used successfully in six patients. Primary device failure occurred in 12 cases which were tackled successfully with second Proglide in all except one.

Conclusion

Perclose Proglide SMC is a safe and effective method to achieve haemostasis up to 22F with less complication rate.

Local Anesthesia for Percutaneous Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) requires large-bore vascular access due to the considerable diameters of the endoprosthesis and delivery device. The preclose technique preceding endograft delivery has opened the door for an evolved access strategy. In addition, treatment under local anesthesia offers the advantage of optimal neuromonitoring. The goal of this study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of percutaneous TEVAR under local anesthesia.

METHODS

All patients undergoing TEVAR in an elective setting at the Antwerp University Hospital between June 2012 and June 2015 were prospectively entered into an endovascular database. This database was queried for demographics, procedural details, and access-related complications. All patients underwent a percutaneous approach with the Perclose Proglide under local anesthesia.

RESULTS

This review identified 34 patients in whom 37 percutaneous TEVAR procedures were completed under local anesthesia. All patients experienced adequate analgesia, and no conversions to general anesthesia were implemented. The mean size of the arteriotomy was 23.8 ± 1.3 French (F). The number of Proglide deployments was 80, with an 8% rate of failure on deployment. There were no conversions to surgical cutdown, and adequate hemostasis was obtained in all procedures. The incidence of postprocedural access-related complications was 3%.

CONCLUSION

Local anesthesia for percutaneous TEVAR can be performed safely and effectively. The percutaneous approach facilitates local anesthesia, which provides the added benefit of early recognition of neurologic complications while maintaining a low risk of access-related complications despite the need for large-bore vascular access.

Vascular Complications Associated with Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement

Background Transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a novel technique for treating aortic stenosis, yet vascular complications are yet to be delineated. Objectives This study aims to study the vascular complications of TAVR with Edwards Sapien valves (Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Irvine, CA). Methods We performed a retrospective evaluation of TAVR patients. Standard demographics, femoral vessel and sheath size, access type (femoral cut-down [FC], percutaneous access [PFA], and iliac conduit [IC]), and treatment method were recorded. Complications were defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium Criteria. Logistic regression was used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 99 patients underwent TAVR between February 15, 2012 and July 17, 2013 with an Edwards Sapien valve. Out of which, 48 were males with a mean age of 83 ± 7 years. Overall, 33 had FC, 58 had PFA, and 6 had an IC. A total of 17 major (2 aortic and 15 iliac) and 38 minor complications (36 access and 2 emboli) occurred. Aortic complications were managed by open repair (OR, 1) or percutaneous repair (PR, 1). Overall, 12 iliac injuries were managed by PR and 3 by OR. Out of the 33 groin complications in FC patients 8 (24%) were treated by OR, whereas 30 (52%) of the 58 groin complications in PTA patients were treated by PR. There were no differences in transfusion requirements or length of stay. Conclusion Vascular complications of TAVR are common with most being minor, related to access site and causing no immediate sequelae. Iliac injury can be managed by PR or OR. Aortic injury is associated with significant mortality. These findings increase vascular surgeons' awareness of these complications and how to manage them.

Novel Risk Score Model for Prediction of Survival Following Elective Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify significant predictors of long-term mortality after elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

We included all cases with elective EVAR based on a national data set from the Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization. Clinical and anatomic variables were analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression model to determine predictors of mortality and develop a score equation to categorize patients into low, medium, and high long-term mortality risk.

RESULTS

A total of 5678 patients with EVAR were included with an average age of 73.6 ± 8.2 years. The majority were male (81.6%) with a history of smoking (86.1%). There were 3 deaths within 30 days (0.1%). Several factors were associated with poor survival: unstable angina (hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; P = .008), dialysis (HR, 3.7; P < .001), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 (HR, 1.7; P = .044), eGFR 30 to 59 (HR, 1.4; P = .002), age >80 (HR, 3.2; P < .001), age 75 to 79 (HR, 2.2; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on oxygen (HR, 3.3; P < .001), aortic diameter >5.8 cm (HR, 1.2; P = .043), and high risk for surgery (HR, 1.4; P = .043). Preoperative aspirin use and body mass index 25 to 35 were both found to be protective (HR, 0.78; P = .017 and HR, 0.8; P = .024, respectively). With our scoring model, 5- and 10-year survival rates for patients with low, medium, and high risk were 89.2%, 80.7%, and 64.1% and 77.2%, 60.1%, and 40.1%, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Ten-year survival following EVAR in patients with a high-risk score utilizing the model provided was 40.1%. Patients with multiple comorbidities at risk for decreased long-term survival can be identified with our model, which is more applicable for high-volume contemporary institutions.