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

Fascial Suture Technique Vs. Open Femoral Access for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

The modern open surgical management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has changed little since its inception in the 1950s. Endoaneurysmorrhaphy, first described by Rudolph Matas in 1888, involved ligating the branches of an aneurysm from within the aneurysm sac. Approximately 25 years later at the

IP257. Percutaneous Femoral Access Associated With Reduced Resource Use After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Trauma

Stent Graft-Induced Aortic Wall Injury—Anesthesia Pitfalls and Pearls for the Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Procedure

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Written by the Standards of Practice Committee for the Society of Interventional Radiology and Endorsed by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association

Introduction: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Treatment options include open and endovascular AAA repair. We explored the utilization patterns and outcomes of open and endovascular AAA repair among hospitalized patients in the US. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there would be no difference in the utilization patterns of open and endovascular AAA repair by race and gender. Methods: Using the ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes, we queried the National Inpatient Sample 2016 to 2019 for hospitalizations among patients ≥18 years old who had an open or endovascular AAA repair. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of death and discharge dispositions comparing open to endovascular AAA repair. Regression models were adjusted for age, sex, median income zip, history of aneurysm of carotid, iliac, and lower extremity artery, co-morbidities including diabetes, hypertension, smoking, obesity, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, COPD, and atherosclerosis. Results: Our study included 132,775 and 36,010 weighted hospitalizations for endovascular and open AAA repair, respectively. The open AAA repair cohort were younger compared to those of endovascular AAA repair (mean age ± S.D: 65.0 ± 10.4 Vs.73.3 ± 9.0). A higher proportion of female underwent open AAA repair than endovascular AAA repair (33.5% vs. 20.9%). Across all racial/ethnic groups, endovascular repair for AAA was more common than open AAA repair among males, except for black males. A higher proportion of black males underwent open AAA repair than endovascular repair (5.7% vs. 3.9%). Patients who had open AAA repair had higher odds of death compared to those who had endovascular repair (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.99 [95% CI, 5.22-6.87]; p<.0001 ). Conversely, a higher odd of discharge to home/short term facility was noted among patients who had endovascular compared to open AAA repair (aOR, 5.83 [95% CI, 5.38 - 6.32]; p<.0001) . Conclusions: Disparities exist in the utilization of open versus endovascular AAA repair among hospitalized patients. Results could be used to support future research to examine factors driving these disparities.

Unselected Percutaneous Access with Large Vessel Closure for Endovascular Aortic Surgery: Experience and Predictors of Technical Success

Urgent endovascular repair for ruptured aortic aneurysm using computed tomography image fusion

Recently published long-term outcomes of the UK Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) trial investigators and the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Repair group have continued to demonstrate the superiority of EVAR in the perioperative period, but they have failed to establish long-term sustainable durability compared to open repair because of increased graft-related complications and reinterventions.1,2 In 2005, thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) was approved in the United States for the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAAs). This approval, based on the results of a phase II trial3 evaluating the GORE TAG endovascular prosthesis (W.L. Gore and Associates, Newark, Delaware), led to a nationwide explosion in the use of thoracic endovascular techniques for managing DTAAs.4 Physicians had already been performing EVAR for more than a decade. Whereas EVAR was initially used to repair abdominal aneurysms with a favorable anatomy, its use later expanded to include complex cases involving a short aneurysmal neck, a tortuous aorta, and (more recently) aneurysmal rupture. Although TEVAR has only a brief history, a similar trend is obvious: This approach is being used with reasonable success to treat dissections and even ruptured aneurysms5; in addition, various new debranching techniques are allowing TEVAR to be applied to portions of the aorta previously deemed unapproachable. Article see p 2718 Najibi and colleagues6 reported the results of the first study to compare TEVAR with open aortic repair. Their series comprised 18 patients, and the control group included a historic cohort of patients who had undergone open aortic repair during the previous 3 years. Short-term follow-up data showed that the endovascular group had significantly shorter operative times, shorter hospital and intensive-care–unit stays, and less operative blood loss. Subsequently, Bavaria and associates7 reported the results of a phase II multicenter trial that assessed GORE …

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

Regulatory TEVAR clinical trials

Invited commentary

Quality of life before and after endovascular and retroperitoneal abdominal aortic 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.

What Factors Predict Wound Complications after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair?