A comparative study between surgical cut down and percutaneous closure devices in management of large bore arterial access

Abstract

BackgroundCompared to conventional open surgery, minimally invasive catheter-based procedures have less post procedural complications. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) require large bore arterial access. Optimal site management of large bore arterial access is pivotal to reduce the hospital-acquired complications associated with large bore arterial access. We wanted to compare surgical cutdown versus percutaneous closure devices in site management of large bore arterial access.MethodsParticipants planned for TAVI or EVAR with large bore arterial access more than 10 French were included, while participants with history of bypass surgery, malignancies, thrombophilia, or sepsis were excluded. A consecutive sample of 100 participants (mean age 74.66 ± 2.65 years, 61% males) was selected, underwent TAVI or EVAR with surgical cutdown (group 1) versus TAVI or EVAR with Proglide™ percutaneous closure device (group 2).ResultsThe incidence rate of hematoma was significantly lower in group 2 versus group 1 (p = 0.014), the mean procedure time (minutes) and the median hospital stay (days) were significantly higher in group 1 versus group 2 (t(98) = − 2.631, p = 0.01, and U = 2.403, p = 0.018, respectively), and the c-reactive protein pre-procedure and the c-reactive protein post-procedure were significantly lower in group 2 versus group 1 (U = -2.969, p = 0.003, and U = -2.674, p = 0.007, respectively).ConclusionsOur study showed a lower incidence rate of large bore arterial access complications as hematoma, a shorter procedure time, and a shorter hospital stay with percutaneous closure devices compared to surgical cutdown.