Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair Research Articles

Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm can be Safely Performed in Over Ninety Percent of Elective Cases Despite Instruction for Use Recommendations

Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm can be Safely Performed in Over Ninety Percent of Elective Cases Despite Instruction for Use Recommendations

A Pilot Study of Endovascular Repair for Ruptured Aortic Aneurysms With the Use of Carbon Dioxide Angiography Alone.

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has become a common approach. Hemorrhagic shock associated with the use of iodinated contrast medium (ICM) increases the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Theoretically, eliminating ICM from EVAR can decrease that risk. The aim of this pilot study was to analyze the feasibility and safety of emergent EVAR performed with the exclusive use of carbon dioxide (CO2) for a rAAA. Since 2021, all consecutive rAAAs with hemorrhagic shock and suitable anatomical criteria for a standard endograft have been treated by EVAR with the exclusive use of CO2 using an automated CO2 injector (Angiodroid SpA, San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy). Eight percutaneous EVARs were performed under local anesthesia. Median age was 78 (interquartile range [IQR]=6) years, 5 patients were male. The technical success was 100%, the 30-day mortality was 25% (n=2), the median amount of administered CO2 was 400 (IQR=60) ml. The median change in serum creatinine level between admission, post-operative and 30-day values was an increase of 0.14 mg/dL and a decrease of 0.11 mg/dL, respectively. Post-operative AKI occurred in the two patients who died. All 6 surviving patients showed sac shrinkage >5 mm, and no reinterventions at a median follow-up of 10 months. Endovascular repair of rAAA with the exclusive use of CO2 as contrast agent is technically feasible and safe. Further studies are needed to determine whether CO2 increases survival rate and limits the progression of renal dysfunction after endovascular repair of rAAA. The recorded rate of post-operative AKI after endovascular repair of rAAA performed with the use of CO2 found in this pilot study was significantly lower than the one reported in the literature with the use of ICM. Our hyphotesis is that the use of CO2 during rEVAR might increase survival rate and limits the progression of renal dysfunction.

Total Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair With a Triple Inner-Branch Device (the Innominate Approach).

To describe a completely percutaneous approach for endovascular arch repair (arch-percutaneous endovascular aortic repair [PEVAR]) with a triple inner-branch device: the "Innominate Approach." After right axillary and single common femoral arteries percutaneous access, the arch stent-graft is introduced and deployed transfemorally using fusion overlay. The brachiocephalic artery (BCA) and the corresponding inner branch are cannulated from the axillary access. Through this access, a steerable-sheath guides antegrade cannulation of the left common carotid artery (LCCA) through its inner branch. Optionally, a wire preloaded through the left subclavian artery (LSA) and the LCCA branch, is snared from the BCA access providing LCCA through and through access. A 10 Fr sheath is then positioned from the BCA branch in the LCCA branch and a second, trans-axillary wire through the same sheath is used to catheterize the LCCA. The LCCA is then stented antegradely (regardless of approach). Finally, the BCA and LSA are bridged to complete the procedure. An additional novelty described is the use of VBX (W. L. Gore) as a bridging stent for the BCA. Arch-PEVAR is feasible with the use of adjuncts that are well-known for physicians performing complex endovascular repair. The "Innominate Approach" avoids access and exposure of the carotid arteries. We aim to describe the feasibility of the axillary artery as the main route to perform the brachiocephalic artery (BCA) and the left common carotid artery bridging stenting in case of arch endovascular repair (arch-EVAR) with a triple Inner-Branch Device. According to the present "Innominate Approach", percutaneous arch-EVAR is feasible using either a steerable sheath or a preloaded through-&-through wire. The Innominate approach, including a VBX bridging stent for the BCA, avoids carotid access and exposure, reduces the number of vascular accesses, and allows the downsizing of the trans-axillary devices.

Percutaneous Approach in Endovascular Aortic Procedures Using a Suture-Mediated Closure Device.

The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of a suture-mediated closure device during percutaneous endovascular aortic repair. A single-center, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing endovascular repair for infrarenal, thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and aortic dissections via percutaneous femoral access between April 2017 and June 2021 was performed. The primary endpoint of the study was the efficacy and technical success of the Perclose ProGlide closure device during percutaneous endovascular procedures. The secondary endpoints were intraoperative and postoperative inguinal and vascular complications during and after device use. A total of 376 punctures were performed in 263 patients with the deployment of the ProGlide vascular closure system. Twenty-two cases involved percutaneous re-puncture as part of a staged procedure. The primary and secondary technical success rates were 93.1% (350/376) and 94.7% (356/376), respectively. In 20 patients (5.3%), intraoperative femoral exposure due to complications was required. Postoperative complications occurred in 13 cases (3.5%), 2 of which required surgical reintervention. There was no statistical significance between the type of endovascular procedure and primary technical success (p = 0.56). The introduction of larger-diameter sheaths was not associated with increased intraoperative and postoperative complication rates (p = 0.75 and p = 0.78, respectively). Percutaneous re-puncture of the vascular access site did not result in a lower overall technical success rate (20/22, 90.9% primary technical success rate, p = 0.67; 21/22, 95.5% secondary technical success rate, p = 0.86) or an increased number of perioperative complications (1/22, 4.5% intraoperative complications, p = 0.86; 2/22, 9.1% postoperative complications, p = 0.13). The application of the ProGlide closure system is a safe and efficient method to achieve hemostasis during percutaneous endovascular aortic repair. Complex aortic pathologies, which often require a staged approach with re-puncture, can also be successfully treated with this closure system.

Initial experiences with percutaneous endovascular aortic reconstruction

Introduction: Percutaneous aortic reconstruction is another milestone in aortic surgery. The evolution of vascular closure devices played a key role by enabling arterial closure after large -bore endovascular devices without the need of arterial cut -down.Objective: Our objective was to determine technical success of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair and to report our initial experience using this technique in a Hungarian cohort.Method: Between 15 October 2020 and 21 March 2021, patients who underwent endovascular aortic reconstruction were prospectively and consecutively collected. Patients who were deemed suitable for common femoral artery per cutaneous access were enrolled to the study. Technical success, access -site complications and risk factors were ana- lyzed.Results: A total of 43 patients underwent endovascular aortic reconstruction during the study period, of whom 38 were deemed feasible for percutaneous repair. Dominantly infrarenal aortic aneurysms were treated (n = 26, 68.4%). After ultrasound -guided access, suture -mediated devices were used 2 (1-4) per artery (median, min-max) for clo- sure. Technical success was reported in 37 out of 38 cases (97.4%). Access site complication was reported in 3 (7.9%) cases. The mean (+/- SD) in -hospital stay was 4.9 (+/- 1.7) days. Out of the 3 cases, 1 required intraoperative femoral cut-down. Sheath-size larger than 18 Fr (1.26, 0.09-17.75, 0.862) and body mass index (1.17, 0.923-1.5, 0.19) were positively associated with access site complication but no significant correlation was reported (OR, 95% CI, p- value). However, in patients with larger than 30 kg/m2 body mass index (n = 12), access-related complication was significantly higher than in smaller patients (p = 0.008).Conclusion: Percutaneous endovascular aortic repair is a promising and safe option that has a high technical success rate in patients deemed eligible for common femoral artery access.

Safety of Percutaneous Femoral Access for Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Through Previously Surgically Exposed or Repaired Femoral Arteries

Objective: Percutaneous femoral artery access is being increasingly used in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). The technique can be challenging in patients with previously surgically exposed or repaired femoral arteries because of excessive scar tissue. However, a successful percutaneous approach may cause less morbidity than a “re-do” open femoral approach. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of prior open surgical femoral exposure on technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous approach. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who underwent percutaneous EVAR between 2010 and 2020 at 2 major aortic centers. Patients were divided into 2 groups (with or without prior open surgical femoral access) for analysis of clinical outcomes. Only punctures with sheaths ≥12Fr were included for analysis. The access and (pre)closure techniques were similar in both institutions. Primary end points were intraoperative technical success, access-related revision, and access complications. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify determinants of conversion to open approach and femoral access complications in intact and re-do groins. Results: A total of 632 patients underwent percutaneous (complex) EVAR: 98 had prior open surgical femoral access and 534 patients underwent de novo femoral percutaneous access. A total of 1099 femoral artery punctures were performed: 149 in re-do and 950 in intact groins. The extent of endovascular repair included 159 infrarenal, 82 thoracic, 368 fenestrated/branched, and 23 iliac branch devices. No significant differences were seen in technical success (re-do 93.3% vs intact 95.3%, p=0.311), access-related surgical revision (0.7% vs 0.6%, p=0.950), and access complications (2.7% vs 4.0%, p=0.443). For the whole group, significant predictors for access complications in multivariate analyses were main access site (odds ratio [OR] 2.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07%–5.35%; p=0.033) and increase of the procedure time per hour (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.34%–2.04%; p<0.001), while increase in sheath-vessel ratio had a protective effect (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.127%–0.85%; p=0.021). Surgical conversion was predicted by main access site (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.28%–4.19%; p=0.007) and calcification of 50% to 75% of the circumference of the access vessel (OR 3.29; 95% CI 1.38%–7.86%; p=0.005). Conclusion: Within our population prior open surgical femoral artery exposure or repair had no negative impact on the technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous (complex) endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Comparison between Totally Percutaneous Approach and Femoral Artery Cut-Down in Endovascular Aortic Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in a Single Hospital

To evaluate the short-term outcome of totally percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (pEVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) compared with femoral cut-down endovascular aortic repair (cEVAR). The medical records of patients with ruptured AAAs that underwent EVAR between March 2010 and April 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic information, preoperative vital signs, preoperative laboratory data, method of anesthesia, procedure duration, aneurysm morphology, brand of device used, length of hospital stay, access complications, and short-term outcomes were recorded. Univariate as well as multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of 30-day mortality. Among 77 patients with ruptured AAAs, 17 (22.1%) received cEVAR and 60 (77.9%) received pEVAR. Significant differences in the procedure time (P = 0.004), method of anesthesia (P = 0.040), and 30-day mortality (P = 0.037) were detected between the cEVAR and pEVAR groups. Local anesthesia plus intravenous general anesthesia (odds ratio = 0.141, P = 0.018) was an independent factor associated with 30-day mortality and local anesthesia was better than general anesthesia for 24-hr mortality (P = 0.001) and 30-day mortality (P = 0.003). In patients with ruptured AAAs, pEVAR procedures took less time than cEVAR procedures, but the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly. The 30-day mortality rate was lower with pEVAR than with cEVAR. Local anesthesia may be the key factor in EVAR to improved technical and clinical success.

Outpatient Percutaneous Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Single-Center Experience

PurposeTo evaluate the safety of outpatient percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic repair (PEVAR) versus inpatient PEVAR without or with adjunct procedures. Materials and MethodsBetween January 2012 and June 2019, a cohort of 359 patients comprising 168 (46.8%) outpatients and 191 (53.2%) inpatients who had undergone PEVAR were enrolled. All the patients were asymptomatic but had indications for endovascular aortic repair, ie, fit for intravenous anesthesia and anatomically feasible with standard devices. Patient sex, age, comorbidities, smoking status, type of anesthesia, adjunct procedures, type of graft device, operative times, mortality, complications, and readmissions were analyzed. ResultsMedian follow-up period was 16.5 months (interquartile range, 9–31 months). Except for a higher percentage of tobacco use (42.6% vs 28.8%; P = .04), dyslipidemia (39.7% vs 19.2%; P < .01), and use of local anesthesia (99.4% vs 82.2%; P < .01) in the outpatients, there was no significant difference in the type of graft and adjunct procedures used. No outpatient mortality occurred. There was no difference in the number, severity, and onset of complications (all P > .05). Outpatient unexpected same-day admission, 30-day readmission, and emergency department visit rates were 4.8%, 2.4% (P = .13), and 10% (P < .01), respectively. Operative times for outpatient PEVAR without adjunct procedures were shorter (P < .01). ConclusionsOutpatient PEVAR can be performed with a safety profile similar to that of inpatient PEVAR. The unexpected same-day admission, 30-day readmission, and emergency department visit rates were low. The outpatient PEVARs without adjunct procedures took less time.

Large arteriotomies closure using a combination of vascular closure devices during TEVAR/EVAR: A single centre experience

In this case series, we share our experience of total percutaneous closure of large arteriotomies using combination of vascular closure devices (VCD). A total of six patients with seven sites for endovascular repair were taken for total percutaneous endovascular aortic repair. Ten femoral arteriotomies (26 French (F) = 2, 24 F = 1, 22 F = 3, 20 F = 1, 18 F = 1 &16 F = 2) were successfully closed with 26 Perclose™ and 07 Angio-seal™ devices. There were no local site complications or VCD failure in any of our patients.

Game changers in vascular and endovascular surgery

Game changers in vascular and endovascular surgery

Percutaneous Axillary Artery Access for Endovascular Treatment of Complex Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of percutaneous axillary artery (AxA) access using vascular closure devices (VCD) for endovascular repair (ER) of thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) using fenestrated, branched, and chimney stent grafts. Between September 2013 and December 2017, 40 high risk patients (27 men; mean age: 72.7±7.4 years) with TAAA underwent total percutaneous endovascular aortic repair by percutaneous puncture of the third segment of the left AxA, using a 12F sheath for delivery of the bridging visceral stent grafts. Percutaneous closure was performed using ultrasound guidance and two Perclose ProGlide VCDs per puncture site. Endpoints were device success defined as successful haemostasis of the axillary puncture site by VCD, procedure success defined as endovascularly assisted haemostasis of the AxA, major cerebrovascular and peripheral neurological complications, and 30 day mortality. The median diameter of the AxA in the third segment was 6.5mm (range 4.4-10.4mm). The procedure success was 100%. Device success was achieved in 33 patients (82.5%). Device success in patients with AxA diameter >5mm was 97%. All patients with diameter of the AxA <5mm developed stenosis or occlusions of the vessel (n=6), which were treated by percutaneous stent implantation. One bleeding at the AxA puncture site was treated with trans-femoral implantation of a covered stent. No secondary open procedures were required. No neurological deficit of the left upper limb was seen at discharge. Overall mortality at 30 days was 10%. Direct puncture of the AxA in the third segment and its use as an access vessel for large sheaths during total percutaneous treatment of complex endovascular aortic procedures appear to be feasible and safe in arteries with a diameter >5mm. Complications can be managed using endovascular techniques.

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair versus Endovascular Aortic Repair With Open Femoral Exposure

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to assess cost differences between patients who underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) and open surgical femoral exposure in elective endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Materials and methodsAn IRB-approved single center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent elective EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms from 2009 to 2016 was performed. One hundred patients were selected with 50 patients who underwent PEVAR and 50 patients who underwent open surgical femoral exposure. Patient demographics, procedural variables, and hospital outcomes were collected and compared. Primary outcomes assessed used in cost calculations included operating time (OR time), hospital length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit stay (ICU LOS). Extrapolated cost differences were based on known, published cost multipliers for the primary outcomes observed. ResultsPatients undergoing PEVAR had significant reduction in mean OR time (113.9 min versus 144.9 min, P < 0.001), mean ICU LOS (19.7 h versus 28.9 h, P = 0.094), and overall LOS (28.3 h versus 33.1 h, P = 0.020). There was no statistically significant difference in access related complications, although there was a trend toward less complication rates with PEVAR (0% versus 5%, P = 0.056). Calculated cost of procedures based on mean ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and OR time, showed significant reduction in mean hospital costs with PEVAR ($16,628.5 versus $21,705.8, P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated an overall 23% cost reduction with PEVAR. ConclusionsPrior reports comparing PEVAR versus EVAR with open femoral exposures have shown improvement in overall patient time to ambulation and other hospital metrics such as LOS with PEVAR. There is, however, a paucity of overall cost comparison data regarding PEVAR. In this study, adoption of PEVAR was seen to significantly reduce OR times (19%) and overall hospital LOS (50%). The outcomes observed ultimately translated into significant reduction in hospital costs.

Comparison of Complication and Success Rates of ProGlide Closure Device in Patients Undergoing TAVI and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

Introduction Usage of the Perclose ProGlide® (PP: Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) closure device is becoming increasingly prevalent during percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The respective conditions treated via these procedures, abdominal aortic aneurysm and aortic valve stenosis, share risk factors but are two different physiopathological problems. Aim Our aim was to compare the complication and success rates of PP closure device use in patients undergoing EVAR and TAVI. Materials and Methods A total of 74 patients, including 58 undergoing TAVI and 16 undergoing EVAR, were analysed in our study. Results Of the TAVI patients treated using the PP closure device, two (3.4%) had access to site-related bleeding complications and two (3.4%) experienced device failure. Of the EVAR patients who received the PP closure device, three (18.8%) had bleeding complications and three (18.8%) experienced device failure. Conclusion Due to the underlying diffuse aortic wall pathology, the success rate of PP closure device use was lower and the complication rate of PP closure device was higher in the EVAR group versus the TAVI group.

IP077. Two-Device Closure Method for Large-Diameter Arteriotomies in Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair

Percutaneous endovascular aortic repairs are associated with access site complications. As endovascular devices become more sophisticated and frequently require large-bore arteriotomies, several devices and techniques have been described to aid in the percutaneous closure of arteriotomies, including collagen plug devices (Angio-Seal; Terumo Interventional Systems, Somerset, NJ) and percutaneous suture-mediated closure devices (Perclose; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, Calif). Two-device preclose technique using two Perclose devices has been well established. Combined Perclose and Angio-Seal technique has been described for arteriotomies up to 14F because of instances of only a single Perclose device successfully predeployed during the preclose technique. We sought to determine whether a hybrid Perclose and Angio-Seal closure technique would safely and effectively establish hemostasis in large-bore arteriotomies up to 20F. Before sheath insertion, one Perclose device was predeployed. At the end of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair, device sheath and introducer were withdrawn over a 0.035-inch wire, and partially deployed Perclose was fully deployed. The sheath and introducer were fully withdrawn, and the arteriotomy was closed with a 6F Angio-Seal vascular closure device. Patients were observed at day 1 and day 30 and at least 1 year after intervention. A composite end point of complications was defined as an access site-related bleed or hematoma or retroperitoneal hematoma that required blood transfusion, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, or dissection. The combined technique was initially successful in 44 of 46 arteriotomies (95.6%) in 24 of 26 patients (92.3%) with no conversions to cutdown. Sheath sizes ranged from 10F to 20F outer diameter (OD), with an average of 15.85F OD. In the two instances in which satisfactory hemostasis using this method was not initially achieved, Perclose failure and Angio-Seal failure each accounted for a singled episode and required manual compression. Both instances occurred in a 20F arteriotomy. The only late complication of this method was a subcentimeter pseudoaneurysm in the arteriotomy where the perclose device did not deploy. There were no other early or late complications in this series. Large-bore arteriotomies can be safely and effectively closed using a hybrid percutaneous closure technique for sheaths up to 19F OD. Further investigation is needed to assess the value of this closure in 20F OD sheaths and above.

Percutaneous access planning, techniques and considerations for endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).

Percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has transformed the field of aortic repair. As techniques and devices improve, interventionalists continue to expand the boundaries of what is possible, enabling these life-saving procedures to be performed on a wider range of more technically challenging cases. This article discusses endovascular access considerations for EVAR including; ultrasound guidance, preclose technique, access vessel options, innovative devices, and bailout strategies that interventionalists should be familiar with to optimize patient outcomes.

Financial Impact of PEVAR Compared With Standard Endovascular Repair in Canadian Hospitals

ObjectivesThe percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic repair (PEVAR) approach is a minimally invasive technique that has demonstrated clinical benefit over traditional surgical cut down associated with standard endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR). The objective of our study was to evaluate the budget impact to a Canadian hospital of changing the technique for AAA repair from the EVAR approach to the PEVAR approach. MethodsWe examined the budget impact of replacing the EVAR approach with the PEVAR approach in a Canadian hospital that performs 100 endovascular AAA repairs annually. The model incorporates the costs associated with surgery, length of stay, and postoperative complications occurring within 30 days. ResultsThe use of PEVAR in AAA repair is associated with increased access device costs when compared with the EVAR approach (CAD$1000 vs CAD$400). However, AAA repair completed with the PEVAR approach demonstrates reduced operating time (101 minutes vs 133 minutes), length of stay (2.2 days vs 3.5 days), time in the recovery room (174 minutes vs 193 minutes), and postoperative complications (6% vs 30%), which offset the increased device costs. The model establishes that switching to the PEVAR approach in a Canadian hospital performing 100 AAA repairs annually would result in a potential cost avoidance of CAD$245,120. ConclusionsA change in AAA repair technique from EVAR to PEVAR can be a cost-effective solution for Canadian hospitals.

Retrospective Evaluation of Percutaneous Access for TEVAR and EVAR: Time to Make it the Standard Approach?

Introduction To evaluate the safety of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair and the relationship of access site characteristics to complications Materials and Methods All patients undergoing percutaneous TEVAR, EVAR and FEVAR procedures from January 2010 to May 2016 were retrospectively analysed for incidence of complications and their relationship to various access site characteristics like access artery size, degree of vessel calcification, skin to artery distance and sheath to artery ratio. Hemostasis occurring within 15 min after suture closure with or without manual compression was defined as primary hemostasis. Results 92 patients with 142 femoral access sites were included in the study. Median follow-up was 28.13 months (range 2.5 - 76.7 months, Mean 32.39, SD - 21.66 months). Introducer system size ranged from 12F to 25F. Primary haemostasis was achieved in 97.1 % (138/142) of the total femoral access sites. Four access sites (2.8 %) had to be closed surgically; in all 4 cases the introducer systems was ≥ 18F. Two of these access sites had been operated upon previously. Late complications including inguinal hematoma (n = 7), wound infection (n = 1), scrotal hematoma (n = 1), pseudoaneurysm (n = 4) and late bleeding (n = 4) occurred in 17 access sites (11.9 %), of which 13 were managed conservatively. On account of the low complication rate, no correlation between the evaluated variables and observed complications could be established. Conclusion Percutaneous endovascular aortic repair is feasible and safe irrespective of the size of the introducer sheath and the nature of aorto-iliac pathology. The technical success rate is high and the incidence of complications is low. Early complications are most often associated with sheath sizes ≥ 18 F. The majority of the late complications can be treated conservatively. Key points: · Percutaneous endovascular aortic repair is feasible and safe.. · Technical success rate is high and complication rate is low.. · Vascular closure device failure in the occasional patient may necessitate surgical intervention.. Citation Format · Thomas RP, Kowald T, Schmuck B et al. Retrospective Evaluation of Percutaneous Access for TEVAR and EVAR: Time to Make it the Standard Approach?. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2017; 189: 347 - 355.

Predictive Factors for Additional ProGlide Deployment in Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Repair

PurposeTo evaluate outcomes and predictive factors for additional ProGlide device deployment in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) with the preclose technique. Materials and MethodsClinical data of patients who underwent PEVAR with the preclose technique from February 2012 to January 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 268 patients (229 men, 39 women) who underwent PEVAR (thoracic endovascular aortic repair [TEVAR], n = 113; endovascular abdominal aortic repair [EVAR], n = 152; simultaneous TEVAR and EVAR, n = 3) with 418 femoral access sites were enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 69 years ± 14. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictive factors associated with additional ProGlide device deployment. ResultsPrimary technical success with adequate hemostasis and two ProGlide devices was 87.6%, and 48 femoral arterial access sites (11.5%) required additional ProGlide device deployment. The secondary technical success rate was 99.0%. Four femoral access sites (1.0%) needed surgical repair. Anterior wall calcification near the arteriotomy increased the risk of additional ProGlide device deployment (adjusted odds ratio, 6.19; 95% confidence interval, 2.81–13.64; P < .001), whereas larger sheath size, common femoral artery (CFA) diameter, and depth from the skin to the arteriotomy did not. ConclusionsAdditional ProGlide device deployment reduces the rate of surgical repair after primary hemostasis failure in PEVAR. Anterior CFA wall calcification is a significant predictor for additional ProGlide device deployment.

Abstract No. 456 - Arterial access site changes on CT angiography following open vs. percutaneous endovascular aortic repair

Abstract No. 456 - Arterial access site changes on CT angiography following open vs. percutaneous endovascular aortic repair

Abstract No. 392 - Cost comparison of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) versus endovascular aortic repair with open femoral exposure

Abstract No. 392 - Cost comparison of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) versus endovascular aortic repair with open femoral exposure