Percutaneous Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Research Articles

Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with monitored anesthesia care decreases operative time but not pulmonary complications.

To report our experience and compare the results of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to PEVAR under general anesthesia (GA). A retrospective review of patients who underwent non-emergency endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) was completed. Patients were excluded if they had a complex repair, including fenestrated, branched, or parallel endografting. Demographics, operative data, 30-day mortality/morbidity and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A total of 159 patients were identified with a median age of 69. 115 patients had PEVAR, 45 (39.1%) PEVAR MAC and 70 (60.9%) PEVAR GA. PEVAR MAC compared to PEVAR GA had decreased operative time (106 vs. 134 min, P < 0.001), time in the operating room (163 vs. 245 min, P = 0.016), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (115 vs. 176 mL P = 0.012). There was no statistically significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.9 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.133), and post-operative complications including pulmonary (2.2 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.835). Forty-four patients had EVAR with a femoral cutdown (FC), including 14 PEVAR conversions. PEVAR conversion was associated with higher EBL (543 vs. 323 mL, P = 0.03), operative time (230 vs. 178 min, P = 0.01), and operating room time (307 vs. 275 min, P = 0.01) compared to planned EVAR with FC. PEVAR under MAC is associated with shorter time in the operating room compared to PEVAR under GA. PEVAR under MAC does however not decrease overall morbidities, including postoperative pulmonary complications.

Highlights From the Circulation Family of Journals.

Highlights From the Circulation Family of Journals.

Local anesthesia for percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with fewer pulmonary complications

ObjectivePercutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be performed with general anesthesia (GA) or local anesthesia (LA). Our goal was to assess perioperative outcomes comparing anesthesia type in percutaneous EVAR. MethodsThe Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all exclusively percutaneous EVAR procedures. Univariable analysis was used to compare which patients were offered LA. Multivariable analysis was used to determine the independent effect of anesthesia type. ResultsThere were 8141 percutaneous EVARs identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Average age was 73 years, and 83% were male. GA and LA were used in 7387 (90.7%) and 754 (9.3%) cases, respectively. GA was used more often in patients who were younger (72.8 ± 8 vs 74.3 ± 9), white (89% vs 84.5%), and on Medicare (62% vs 61.5%); in patients with higher body mass index (28.3 ± 6 vs 27.3 ± 7), hypertension (81.5% vs 77.8%), diabetes (20.5% vs 17.4%), and previous lower extremity bypass (1.7% vs 0.5%); and in patients undergoing elective repair (86.4% vs 81.3%). Use of GA was associated with lower rates of preoperative congestive heart failure (11.6% vs 16.1%), preoperative anticoagulation (11.7% vs 14.2%), and less use of ultrasound guidance (81.5% vs 88.8%; P < .05). There was no difference in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, previous aneurysm repair, and concomitant iliac aneurysm repair. Multivariable analysis showed that GA compared with LA was associated with more pulmonary complications (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-5.43; P = .002) and prolonged operative time (means ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.52; P < .001). There was no independent effect on overall complications, cardiac complications, or mortality. ConclusionsAlthough it was used in only 1 in 10 cases of percutaneous EVAR, LA was associated with fewer pulmonary complications after adjustment for patient factors. Surgeons should consider expanding the use of LA for percutaneous EVAR when feasible.

An Alternative Technique to Achieve Haemostasis During PEVAR Using Perclose ProGlide.

IntroductionPercutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) using the Perclose ProGlide suture mediated closure device is currently performed on a global scale. A safe, effective, and cheap technique for achieving haemostasis during PEVAR is described that allows the reversible downsizing of the arteriotomy, without using any other devices.TechniqueThe procedure consists of pulling the blue thread of the pre-implanted ProGlide, advancing the knot close to the arterial wall by pushing it with the dilator of a small introducer sheath, and maintaining the system under tension by grasping the end of the blue thread with a haemostat until bleeding control is achieved.DiscussionSeventeen PEVAR femoral access downsizing procedures have been performed between February and June 2018 and no complications were observed. The technique could be useful in everyday practice and has now become the author's standard practice.

Invited commentary

Invited commentary

TCTAP C-180 Successful of Percutaneous Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Angulated Neck and Severe Tortuous Artery Access

TCTAP C-180 Successful of Percutaneous Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Angulated Neck and Severe Tortuous Artery Access

Current Status of Percutaneous Endografting.

Totally percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) using suture-mediated closure devices (SMCDs) has several well-established advantages over standard open femoral exposure as a direct consequence of being less invasive and having shorter times to hemostasis and procedure completion. The first multicenter randomized controlled trial designed to assess the safety and efficacy of PEVAR and to compare percutaneous access with standard open femoral exposure was recently published (the PEVAR trial). The PEVAR trial demonstrated that percutaneous endografting is safe, effective, and noninferior to standard open femoral exposure among trained operators. The study reaffirmed the results of several recent single center and nonrandomized studies, demonstrating that percutaneous access facilitated shorter procedures, shorter times to secure hemostasis, and improved quality of life for patients. As PEVAR has gained popularity among patients and physicians, refinements to the technique and patient selection process have been made. There has been growing interest in treating patients with anatomical characteristics previously thought to be unsuitable for PEVAR, such as common femoral artery (CFA) calcifications, scarred groins, small CFA diameter, and high patient body mass index (BMI). However, observance of strict procedural technique and consideration for patient selection criteria remain paramount in achieving acceptable technical success rates with PEVAR.

Ambulatory percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) has been associated with fewer groin wound complications and shorter operative times, but same-day discharge (SDD) has not been reported. The goal of our article is to assess the feasibility and safety of ambulatory PEVAR and identify patient characteristics that are eligible for this approach. Consecutive patients who underwent elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) between March 2011 and December 2012 were reviewed. SDD was discussed during the preoperative visit with patients who were functionally independent, without significant comorbidities, and had favorable anatomy. These patients were given the option to be discharged in the evening of the PEVAR after 6 hours of bed rest if the procedure was uneventful. Causes for discharge delay and early outcomes were analyzed. During the study period, 79 patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, 64 of whom (mean age, 70.2 ± 9.9; range, 59-97) had elective EVAR (3 ruptures, 5 acute presentations, 3 fenestrated EVARs, 4 elective open AAA repairs were excluded). Fifty-three patients (83%) had bilateral percutaneous access, seven had unilateral percutaneous (11%) access, and the remaining four (6%) had bilateral femoral endarterectomies. The percutaneous closure success rate was 96% in 113 attempts (three conversions for inadequate hemostasis, one for inability to deploy device). Mean length of stay was 1.3 ± 1.4 days (median, 1 day) with no 30-day mortality. Twenty-one patients (33%) were discharged the same day (SDD group), 24 (37%) on postoperative day (POD) 1, 16 (25%) on POD 2/3, and 3 (5%) stayed ≥ 4 days. One patient in the SDD group was readmitted on POD 3 after EVAR for severe postimplantation syndrome. Of the 23 patients who were discharged on POD 1, 10 were kept overnight due to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or advanced age, three transportation issues, two inability to void, two patient preference, two for renal protection, and four due to unplanned femoral cutdown. Patients in the SDD group were significantly younger (66.5 ± 5.4 years vs 72.0 ± 10.6 years; P = .029), had smaller AAAs (5.3 ± 0.5 cm vs 5.9 ± 1.0 cm; P = .013), less blood loss (115 ± 90 mL vs 232 ± 198 mL; P = .012), and shorter operating time (79 ± 24 minutes vs 121 ± 73 minutes; P = .013). There were fewer American Society of Anesthesiologists 4 patients in the SDD group (24% vs 48%; P = .056). The majority (81%) of patients in all groups had general anesthesia (86% vs 79% SDD vs others; P = .523). Ambulatory PEVAR was found to be feasible and safe in one-third of patients undergoing elective EVAR who did not have excessive medical risk, had good functional capacity, and underwent an uneventful procedure. The impact of SDD on cost-effectiveness needs to be further assessed and may not be feasible in hospitals reimbursed based on admission status.

The Kaiser Permanente Experience With Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

This study was conducted to determine the effect of ultrasound (US)-guided percutaneous access for percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) on conversion to open repair by femoral cutdown. We also sought to identify other risk factors associated with failure of percutaneous access and conversion to femoral cutdowns. This is a single-center, retrospective review of 101 patients who underwent PEVAR between January 1, 2005 and July 31, 2009 (56 months). Risk factors that were evaluated for unsuccessful PEVAR included gender, age (≤65 and ≥66 years), US-guided percutaneous access, mechanical failure, abdominal aortic aneurysm size, and the following comorbidities: diabetes, hypertension, vessel calcification, and obesity (body mass index: ≥30 kg/m(2)). There were 10 (9.9%) conversions from percutaneous to femoral cutdown, yielding a success rate of 90.1% for a total percutaneous approach. Each converted patient had one groin converted, resulting in a cutdown rate per groin of 10/202 (5%). There were no 30-day mortalities. Univariate analysis showed that hypertension (P = 0.261), age ≥66 years (P = 0.741), current smoking history (P = 0.649), past smoking history (P = .093), diabetes (P = 0.908), vessel calcification (P = 0.8281), and body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2) (P = 0.052) did not significantly predict conversion to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Mechanical failure significantly predicted conversion to cutdown EVAR (P = 0.0002), whereas US-guided percutaneous access influenced successful PEVAR (P = 0.030). Multivariate analysis showed that mechanical failure significantly predicted conversion to cutdown EVAR (P = 0.003) and US-guided percutaneous access influenced successful PEVAR (P = 0.040) after adjusting for smoking history and obesity. PEVAR is a viable option for aortic aneurysm repair that may be improved with US-guided percutaneous access by reducing the rate of femoral cutdowns.

Total percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

To determine the safety and efficacy of total percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the Perclose ProGlide suture-mediated closure system. From May 2008 to April 2010, 36 abdominal aortic aneurysm patients were undergone total percutaneous endovascular repair. There were 30 male and 6 female patients with a mean age of 68 years. Endografts used included 3 Endurant endografts, 13 Talent endografts, and 20 Zenith endografts. Prior to insertion of the introducer sheath, two ProGlides were pre-set to 18 to 24 F access sites and one to 14 to 16 F access sites. At last, suture the arteriotomy by tying down knots of the ProGlide following removal of the sheath. Technical success, complications, and procedure and access closure times were evaluated. Follow-up protocol consisted of computed tomography angiograms performed at 3, 6, 9, 12 months, and annually thereafter. Twenty patients were operated under local anesthesia and 16 patients under general anesthesia. A total of 68 femoral arteries were closed with 128 devices. Thirty-eight vessels were with 2 devices, while 8 arteries required 3 devices and 2 arteries required 4 devices for hemostasis and an additional 20 vessels only required a single device. Sixty-three (63/68, 92.6%) vessels were closed successfully. Two vessels converted to open closure. Three vessels complicated with hematomas without surgical procedure. The mean follow-up was (12±3) months. There was one asymptomatic femoral artery dissection 3 months after operation. Total percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is safe and effective. But it should be performed at hybrid operating room where can convert to open procedure if necessary.

Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair leads to a reduction in wound complications

While endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has significantly reduced the morbidity associated with open surgery, efforts continue to minimise the surgical insult to the patient. We report our experience of percutaneous EVAR. Since June 2005, 17/20 EVARs (85%) have been attempted percutaneously by deployment of two Perclose) devices into each femoral artery prior to passage of the device sheath. The sutures are left untied until the sheath is removed at the end of the procedure, when haemostasis is obtained. Patients were entered onto a prospectively maintained database and followed up at regular intervals in a dedicated EVAR clinic. Access and subsequent graft deployment was successful in all the 17 cases. The range of defects closed ranged from 12-24 Fr. Five patients (29%) required open groin exploration at the end of the procedure to achieve haemostasis. There was a significantly lower incidence of wound complications in the percutaneous EVAR group (6 vs. 10% open cutdown cases, P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test). Percutaneous EVAR is both a feasible and safe method of performing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, which is associated with a reduction in wound complication rates.