Efficacy and Safety of Augmenting the Preclose Technique with a Collagen-Based Closure Device for Percutaneous Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Endovascular Repair in Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury: A 10-Year Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Life-threatening blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) typically occurs alongside multiple other traumatic injuries. Symptoms of BTAI can range from being asymptomatic in the case of intimal tears to becoming catastrophic in the case of uncontained aortic ruptures. The aim of this research was to examine the clinical outcomes for those who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in hospital settings.  Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted using patient data that were extracted from Al-Noor Specialist Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, for the duration between January 2011 and December 2021. This study included data from all patients aged 18 and up who had been diagnosed with BTAI and had undergone TEVAR. The BTAI diagnoses were confirmed using CT scans. Logistic regression was utilized to identify predictors of patients' health status improvement and length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients were involved. Around 50.0% (n=40) of the patients had grade 3 thoracic aortic injuries. The median duration of stay was 14.00 days (Interquartile range 21.00). Only one patient developed post-procedure complications (1.3%). Almost one-third (31.3%; n=25) of the patients required subclavian coverage. One patient developed intraoperative endoleak (1.3%). One patient developed an access site complication (1.3%). The mortality rate within 30 days of the operation was 1.3%. The vast majority of the patients (92.5%; n=74) showed improvement upon discharge from the hospital. The baseline patient characteristics and length of hospitalization had no effect on the improvement of patient status upon discharge or their length of stay (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with BTAI have shown an excellent success rate with TEVAR and a low complication rate. Predictors of procedure success and length of stay need to be identified; however, this can't be done without larger-scale investigations. This can aid in the development of preventative measures that improve clinical outcomes for the patients.

Angio-Seal Used as a Bailout for Incomplete Hemostasis After Dual Perclose ProGlide Deployment in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

BACKGROUND

The failure rate of vascular closure devices remains a significant cause of major vascular complications in contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation practice.

METHODS

This research aimed to evaluate use of the Angio-Seal device in a bailout context in the setting of incomplete hemostasis following use of dual Perclose ProGlide devices in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A total of 185 patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with either dual Per-close ProGlide (n = 139) or a combination of dual Perclose ProGlide and Angio-Seal (n = 46) were retrospectively analyzed. The baseline, procedural characteristics, and all outcomes (defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria) were compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences were seen between the dual Perclose ProGlide vs dual Perclose ProGlide+Angio-Seal groups with regard to the in-hospital Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 primary end points of major vascular complications (n = 13 [9.4%] vs n = 2 [4.3%]; P = .36), minor vascular complications (n = 13 [9.4%] vs n = 8 [14.7%]; P = .14), major bleeding (n = 16 [11.5%] vs n = 2 [4.3%]; P = .25), and minor bleeding (n = 9 [6.5%] vs n = 5 [10.9%]; P = .34), with higher rates of hematoma in the dual Perclose ProGlide+Angio-Seal group (n = 4 [2.9%] vs n = 5 [10.9%]; P = .044).

CONCLUSION

Finding from the current study suggest that adjunctive Angio-Seal deployment may be feasible and safe, especially in patients with incomplete hemostasis following dual Perclose ProGlide use, and can be an optimal "bailout" procedure.

Endovascular Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: the Year in Review

OPINION STATEMENT

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the predominant method of treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The use of conscious sedation with local anesthesia and percutaneous femoral access has further decreased the morbidity of the procedure. Current devices can more effectively manage increasingly "hostile" aneurysm necks, while chimney grafts or dedicated fenestrated stent-grafts can be used for juxta-renal disease with favorable results. However, endovascular repair does present a new set of challenges, and endoleaks remain an area of concern. While there is general consensus that type I and type III endoleaks require treatment, type II endoleaks are the topic of ongoing research and debate. Development of devices and techniques to prevent and treat endoleak continues to progress. Advances in contrast-enhanced ultrasound are reducing reliance on computed tomography for post-operative monitoring. This is an important step in this population at high risk for the development of kidney failure. Despite these many innovations, further research is needed to optimize the care of patients with AAA.

Percutaneous removal using Perclose ProGlide closure devices versus surgical removal for weaning after percutaneous cannulation for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

OBJECTIVE

The removal of arterial cannulas using a Perclose device (Abbott Vascular, Clonmel, Tipperary, Ireland) has not been reported in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We investigated the procedural outcomes and complications of percutaneous device closure vs surgical repair for hemostatic control of the arterial access site in weaning from venoarterial ECMO.

METHODS

Between September 2012 and December 2014, 115 patients with ECMO weaned by percutaneous or surgical access were enrolled. The percutaneous technique used two ProGlide devices (Abbott Vascular) by direct puncture of an arterial cannula at the time of weaning off ECMO. The primary outcomes were composite complications of open repair at the insertion site, limb ischemia after removal of the arterial cannula, removal site infection, pseudoaneurysm, distal part embolization, and 10 minutes or more manual compression at the weaning site.

RESULTS

The percutaneous technique was performed on 56 patients, and the surgical exposure technique was performed on 59. Technical success was not significantly different between the percutaneous and surgical groups (85.7% vs 86.4%; P = 1.0) although the procedure duration (17.15 ± 9.38 minutes vs 64.33 ± 31.67 minutes; P < .001) was shorter in the percutaneous access group. A composite of procedure-related complications and length of stay in the intensive care unit after weaning was not significantly different between groups (17.9% vs 28.8%; P = .19 and 16.82 ± 38.53 days vs 19.69 ± 21.40 days; P = .62).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous access using two Perclose ProGlide devices was a feasible and safe strategy for weaning from ECMO.