ENDOVASCULAR ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSM REPAIR: A 7 YEAR EXPERIENCE AT THE LAUNCESTON GENERAL HOSPITAL

Safety and Efficacy of Embolization Using N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate via a Percutaneous Direct Approach for Endoleaks after Abdominal/Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Purpose: To elucidate the safety and efficacy of embolization using N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) for endoleaks after abdominal/thoracic endovascular aortic repair (EVAR/TEVAR) via a direct percutaneous approach versus a transarterial approach.

Materials and Methods: The retrospective design of the study was approved by the institutional ethics committee, and the requirement for informed written consent was waived. Sixteen patients underwent embolization for endoleaks after EVAR/TEVAR, which was diagnosed as type II, from March 2010 to December 2013 at our institution. The number of embolization sessions was 21. A direct percutaneous approach was used in 10 sessions, and a transarterial approach was used in 11 sessions. There were 11 and 15 embolic sites for the two approaches, respectively. The procedure time, amount of contrast media used, therapeutic effect, and complications were evaluated.

Results: The mean procedure time (per embolic site) was 100 min (53-170) in the direct percutaneous approach, which was significantly shorter than the 191 min (76-275) in the transarterial approach. The mean amount of contrast media used during the procedure (per embolic site) was 12.8 ml (3-25) by the direct percutaneous approach, which was significantly lesser than the 71.8 ml (30-180) in the transarterial approach. Local control of the embolic site and interval increase in the size of aneurysm after embolization were not significantly different between the two approaches. In one case each, mesenteric hematoma and migration of the embolic agent occurred with a direct percutaneous approach, and a small arterial injury occurred with the transarterial approach; aneurysmal rupture/perianeurysmal hematoma and neurological dysfunction were not observed.

Conclusion: A direct percutaneous approach is a feasible procedure for embolization of endoleaks after EVAR/TEVAR.

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.

Effects of study design and trends for EVAR versus OSR

Purpose:

To investigate if study design factors such as randomization, multi-center versus single center evidence, institutional surgical volume, and patient selection affect the outcomes for endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR). Finally, we investigate trends over time in EVAR versus OSR outcomes.

Methods:

Search strategies for comparative studies were performed individually for: OVID’s MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HAPI, and Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews (including Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE and CCTR), limited to 1990 and November 2006.

Results:

Identified literature: 84 comparative studies pertaining to 57,645 patients. These include 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), plus 2 RCTs with long-term follow-up. The other 78 comparative studies were nonrandomized with 75 reporting perioperative outcomes, of which 16 were multi-center, and 59 single-center studies. Of the single-center studies 31 were low-volume and 28 were high-volume centers. In addition, 5 studies had all patients anatomically eligible for EVAR, and 8 studies included high-risk patients only. Finally, 25 long term observational studies reported outcomes up to 3 years.

Outcomes:

Lower perioperative mortality and rates of complications for EVAR versus OSR varied across study designs and patient populations. EVAR adverse outcomes have decreased in recent times.

Conclusion:

EVAR highlights the problem of performing meta-analysis when the experience evolves over time.