Safety and Effectiveness of a “Percutaneous-First” Approach to Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

An In-Vitro Comparison of Steady State Leakage Rates through Introducer Sheaths Used for Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (fEVAR) involves deploying a covered stent into the aorta followed by multiple visceral stents through fenestrations in the main body of graft. The most commonly used large sheaths for cannulation of visceral vessels are the Gore DrySeal Flex, Cook Performer Check-Flo, and Medtronic Sentrant. None of these sheaths were designed for the insertion of multiple sheaths, and so a slow but steady leakage of blood occurs during the procedure. The aim of this paper is to assess in an in vitro setting which large bore sheath has the best valve for use when multiple smaller sheaths are inserted through it.

METHODS

Three large bore introducer sheaths (LBISs) were used for this study, The Gore DrySeal Flex LBIS, Medtronic Sentrant LBIS and Cook Performer Check-Flo LBIS. A test rig was constructed, made of an 18-liter fluid reservoir mounted vertically and receiving a constant supply of water from a domestic water supply which flowed into the reservoir and out of an overflow. The reservoir was connected to the LBIS by a vertical plastic pipe with an internal diameter of 40 mm and an isolation valve. The LBIS was connected to the isolation valve by inserting the LBIS up a flexible silicone tube connected to the isolation valve. The LBIS was subject to a constant column/pressure of water and fluid leakage from the LBIS was collected in a plastic pot/tray placed underneath the LBIS. The leakage rates through each LBIS were determined for the following smaller diameter sheath combinations inserted through the valve, one 6 French Sheath, two 6 French Sheaths, two 6 French Sheaths and one 7 French Sheath. This was done to closely mimic a fEVAR procedure in vitro. The procedure was to insert different sheath combinations through the nonreturn valves in the LBIS and measure the volume of fluid that leaked through the valves. The leaked fluid was weighed, and the weight was converted to volume using the density of water (1 g/ml).

RESULTS

The average (mean) leakage rates for each LBIS and each sheath combination showed that leakage rates when only one sheath was inserted were very low. For all 3 LBIS's tested, the leakage rates increased dramatically when multiple sheaths were inserted. The Medtronic LBIS leaked the most, followed by Cook, followed by Gore. For the Cook LBIS, the leakage rates exhibited with 2 × 6 French sheaths were approx. 106 times greater than those for the Gore LBIS and 5 times greater for the 2 × 6 French +1 × 7 French sheath combination. A similar comparison for the Medtronic LBIS versus the Gore LBIS yields factors of 132 and 8.

CONCLUSIONS

Leakage rates increase significantly when multiple sheaths are inserted and the Gore LBIS demonstrates significantly lower leakage than both the Cook and Medtronic during procedures that require simultaneous, multiple insertions of smaller sheaths. Although the Gore Dryseal has by far the lowest leakage rate when 3 small diameter sheaths are inserted (just under 1 ml/s), depending on the duration of the procedure this could still result in significant blood loss.

Mini-surgical access prevents local complications and reduces costs in endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

This study aims to propose a minimally invasive surgical approach to the common femoral artery in endovascular aortic repair and assess its value by a single-center retrospective study including 118 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2017 and 2022, all patients receiving endovascular treatment for thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms in our Center had the anterior wall of the common femoral artery exposed, through a 2- 3cm transverse groin incision, instead of a complete surgical cut-down. We access the artery with a purse-string suture, held tight with a tourniquet. After procedure completion, we tie the purse-string closing the arteriotomy. We retrospectively analyzed the cohort of all consecutive patients treated with endovascular aortic repair in this period and recorded primary and assisted technical success, operative time, in-hospital length of stay, access failure, and access-related complications, comparing the results with the current literature.

RESULTS

All procedures were successful, with no perioperative mortality. Primary technical success was achieved in 116 patients: two required adjunctive procedures. No access failure or access-related complications (thrombosis, groin hematoma, lymphocele, wound dehiscence, or infection) occurred. Two accesses required conversion to complete femoral artery exposure and endarterectomy. Operatory time and length of in-hospital stay were comparable to the outcomes of the major studies reporting on percutaneous access, saving the costs of the closure devices.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgical access is safe and feasible for endovascular aortic procedures. Compared to the costs of percutaneous access found in literature, it is cost-effective. It can be chosen whenever the percutaneous approach is not feasible or at high risk of complications.

Use of a Steerable Sheath for Completely Femoral Access in Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair Compared to Upper Extremity Access

PURPOSE

To compare bridging stent graft (BSG) implantation in downward oriented branches in branched endovascular aortic repair (bEVAR), using a commercially available steerable sheath from an exclusively femoral access (TFA) with traditional upper extremity access (UEA).

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, 7 patients with 19 branches in the TFA cohort received BSG insertion using the Medtronic Heli FX steerable sheath from a femoral access, and 10 patients with 32 branches in the UEA cohort from a brachial approach. Technical success, total intervention time, fluoroscopy time, branch cannulation time, and complication rate were recorded.

RESULTS

Technical success was 19/19 branches in the TFA and 31/32 in the UEA cohort. The mean branch cannulation time was considerably shorter in the TFA group (17 vs. 29 min, p = 0.003), and total intervention time tended to be shorter (169 vs. 217 min, p = 0.176).

CONCLUSION

Using a commercially available steerable sheath allowed successful cannulation of all branches in this cohort and was associated with significantly shorter branch cannulation times. Potentially, this technique can lower the stroke and brachial puncture site complication risk as well as reduce total intervention time and radiation dose.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b, retrospective cohort study.

Percutaneous Axillary Artery Access for Peripheral and Complex Endovascular Interventions: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Benefits

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the safety, efficacy, and applicability of percutaneous axillary artery (pAxA) access in patients requiring upper extremity large sheath access during complex aortic, cardiac, and peripheral endovascular procedures. We also take this opportunity to address the potential cost-benefits offered by pAxA access compared to open upper extremity access.

METHODS

A total of 26 consecutive patients, between June 2018 and October 2020, underwent endovascular intervention, requiring upper extremity access (UEA). Ultrasound-guided, percutaneous access of the axillary artery was used in all 26 patients with off-label use of pre-close technique with Perclose ProGlide closure devices. Access sites accommodated sheath sizes that ranged from 6 to 14 French (F). End points were technical success and access site-related complications including isolated neuropathies, hematoma, distal embolization, access-site thrombosis, and post-operative bleeding requiring secondary interventions. Technical success was defined as successful arterial closure intraoperatively with no evidence of stenosis, occlusion, or persistent bleeding, requiring additional intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 26 patients requiring pAxA access, 15 underwent complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (EVAR) with branched, fenestrated, snorkel, or parallel endografts, 6 underwent peripheral vascular interventions, and 5 underwent cardiac interventions. Fifty-three percent accommodated sheath sizes of 12F or higher. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases with no major perioperative access complications requiring additional open or endovascular procedures. In our series, we had one post-operative mortality secondary to myocardial infarction in a patient with significant coronary artery disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data again demonstrated the proposed safety and efficacy attributable to pAxA access, while extending its application to wide spectrum of endovascular interventions which included peripheral or coronary vascular in addition to complex EVAR.

Is percutaneous access superior to cutdown access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair? A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to investigate whether percutaneous access (pEVAR) is superior to cutdown access (cEVAR) in terms of safety and efficacy during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 1999 to December 2020 for studies reporting on the comparison between percutaneous and cutdown techniques for endovascular repair of AAAs. Outcomes evaluated were technical success rates, access site-related complications and operative time, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies with a total of 1683 patients comprising 2715 groin accesses were eligible for the meta-analysis. pEVAR was associated with a lower risk of overall complications (odds ratio (OR) = 0.63; p = .005) and seroma/lymphorrhea (OR, 0.18; p = .0001) and shortened operation time (MD = -39.04; p = .002) and the length of hospital stay (MD = -0.75; p < .00001) compared with cEVAR. The technical success rate for pEVAR was 95.1% (694/729), with an overall OR of 0.27 (95% CI 0.14-0.55, p = .0003) comparing pEVAR with cEVAR. Furthermore, pEVAR did not increase the risk of site infection, femoral artery thrombosis, postoperative hematoma, nerve injury, dissection, and bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair is a safe and effective method for the treatment of AAA. It reduces the risk of overall complications and shortens the operation time and hospital stay. The technical success rate of pEVAR is lower than that of cEVAR, which may be linked to the selection of patients, operator experience, and the use of ultrasound. Large definitive trials are required to draw robust conclusions.

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

OBJECTIVES

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).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Influence of Anesthetic Techniques on Perioperative Outcomes after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of anesthetic techniques on perioperative outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a Chinese population.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed in patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA at our single center. Patients were classified into general anesthesia (GA), regional anesthesia (RA), and local anesthesia (LA) groups. The primary outcomes (30-day mortality and morbidity) and secondary outcomes [procedure time, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and length of hospital stay (LOS)] were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

From January 2006 to December 2015, 486 consecutive patients underwent elective EVAR at our center. GA was used in 155 patients (31.9%), RA in 56 (11.5%), and LA in 275 (56.6%). The GA patients had fewer respiratory comorbidities, shorter and more angulated proximal necks, and more concomitant iliac aneurysms. LA during EVAR was significantly associated with a shorter procedure time (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) and shorter LOS (GA, P = 0.002; RA, P = 0.001), but a higher MAP (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) compared with GA and RA. LA was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiac (odds ratio (OR) 4.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-15.04), pulmonary (OR 5.37, 95% CI 1.58-18.23), and systemic complications (OR 4.15, 95% CI 1.85-9.33) compared with GA. RA was also associated with a decreased risk of systemic complications (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.19-18.92) compared with GA. There was no difference in the 30-day mortality, neurologic complications, renal complications, and intraoperative extra procedures among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthetic techniques for EVAR have no influence on the 30-day mortality. LA for EVAR appears to be beneficial concerning the procedure time, LOS, and 30-day systemic complications for patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA in the Chinese population.

Comparison of transfemoral versus upper extremity access to antegrade branches in branched endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

We studied the outcomes of transfemoral access (TFA) vs upper extremity access (UEA) for branched endovascular aortic repair (BEVAR).

METHODS

From January 2016 to October 2019, 152 consecutive patients underwent BEVAR under general anesthesia at a single institution. In 2018, an alternative approach to the antegrade branches using TFA compared with conventional UEA was introduced. The cohort was divided into TFA and UEA groups according to the access approach. The end points were technical success, adverse events (including perioperative stroke/transient ischemic attack), access complications, operation time, and radiation exposure.

RESULTS

The TFA group included 60 patients (63% male; median age, 71 years; interquartile range [IQR], 65-76 years). The UEA group included 92 patients (67% male; median age, 73 years; IQR, 66-78 years). The number of target vessels (TVs) was similar in both groups (median, 4.0 TVs per procedure; range, 1-7 TVs for both). Technical success was greater in the TFA group (60 of 60 patients; 209 of 209 TVs) than in the UEA group (87 of 92 patients; 334 of 346 TVs; P < .01). The fluoroscopy time (median, 69 minutes; IQR, 48-87 minutes; vs 88 minutes; IQR, 65-104 minutes; P = .39) and contrast agent volume (median, 141 mL; IQR, 123-165 mL; vs median, 130 mL; IQR, 101-157 mL; P = .34) were similar in both groups. The radiation exposure (221 Gy × cm²; IQR, 138-406 Gy × cm²; vs median, 255 Gy × cm²; IQR, 148-425 Gy × cm²; P = .05) was lower and the operation time (median, 300 minutes; IQR, 240-356 minutes; vs median, 364 minutes; IQR, 290-475 minutes; P = .01) was shorter in the TFA group. Brachial access complications (0 of 60 vs 3 of 92 patients) and perioperative strokes/transient ischemic attacks (0 of 60 vs 8 of 92 patients) only occurred in the UEA group (P = .018).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TFA to catheterize antegrade branches was associated with a lower rate of complications in the present study and has become our preferred approach for BEVAR.

Predictors of Aneurysm Sac Shrinkage Utilizing a Global Registry

BACKGROUND

Aneurysm sac remodeling is a complex multifactorial process with unknown factors influencing sac regression after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). We sought to identify factors associated with this process by analyzing data obtained from patients treated with the GORE EXCLUDER endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) endoprosthesis from December 2010 to October 2016 enrolled in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT).

METHODS

All patients enrolled in GREAT with three years CT angiography (CTA) follow-up in each of the three successive years after EVAR were included. The percentage of sac size reduction toward device diameter was calculated and used as a surrogate for sac regression with the formula used being: sac size reduction = ((AAA baseline diameter - AAA diameter at follow-up)/(AAA baseline diameter - device diameter))∗100. The cohort was divided into two groups in accordance with the percentage of aneurysm sac reduction at three years; one with the top quartile of patients and the other with the lowest three quartiles. Demographic and procedural variables were analyzed using univariate and regression modeling to determine factors predictive of sac regression.

RESULTS

There were 3265 subjects enrolled with follow-up as of May 2018 of which 526 (16.2%) had three years of CTA surveillance. Overall aneurysm sac size decreased from a mean of 58.0 mm (Std Dev: 10.4, range: 34.2, 100.0) to a mean of 49.3 mm (Std Dev: 14.1, range: 0, 140) for a percentage reduction toward device diameter of a mean 28.2% (Std Dev: 39.0, range: -103.7, 183.9). On multivariate logistic regression model; two factors proved to be statistically significant contributors to a larger percentage reduction in aneurysm sac: a conical neck (odds ratio [OR] = 1.64, P-value = 0.023) and a larger proximal device diameter (OR = 1.09, P-value = 0.023). On the other hand, two factors were negative predictors of sac shrinkage, namely: old age (OR = 0.96, P-value = 0.002) and larger baseline aneurysm sac diameter (OR = 0.98, P-value = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Aneurysms with conical necks and larger proximal device neck diameters have an increased percentage change in sac size over time after EVAR. Older age and larger initial diameters of aneurysms were negatively associated with percentage change in sac size as well as sac regression. Further study is needed to determine the clinical utility of these observations and applicability across multiple endoprosthesis platforms.

Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Arterial Puncture and Closure Device Training in a Pulsatile Model

OBJECTIVE

The current study assesses the feasibility of in vitro practice of percutaneous puncture techniques in a pulsatile flow-model.

DESIGN

Prospective, controlled, randomized study.

SETTING

The percutaneous access to endovascular aortic repair is considered safe, but success rates may be dependent on surgeon experience with the technique.

PARTICIPANTS

Fourteen vascular surgery trainees and consultants were enrolled and randomized to a study or control group with both groups receiving instructions by a tutor on how to perform ultrasound guided percutaneous puncture and closure using a suture-mediated closure device. The study group received additional hands-on training on a pulsatile flowmodel of the groin and the performance of both groups was then graded. Study group participants were timed during and after their training on the model.

RESULTS

The study group achieved higher overall grading than the control group on a 5-point scale with higher scores indicating a better performance (mean overall scores 4.0 ± 0.7 versus 2.8 ± 1.0, respectively; p = 0.03). Experienced participants (more than 20 punctures performed before the study) achieved higher overall scores than trainees (3.8 ± 0.4 versus 2.5 ± 0.8, respectively; p = 0.01). Five participants in the study group could deploy and close the ProGlide closure device correctly without the help of a tutor while being graded (71% in the study versus 0% in the control group; p = 0.02). Study group participants improved their overall score from 3.2 ± 0.9 to 4.0 ± 0.7 during training (p = 0.02). Time needed to complete the puncture and closure reduced from 456 seconds on average before, to 302 seconds after training (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Study group participants could improve their overall score while working on the simulator. More experienced participants performed better during the simulation, which may indicate the model to be life-like and a potential skills assessment tool. Simulation training may be a valuable adjunct to traditional forms of training when teaching an endovascular technique but is limited by its reliance on simulators and demo devices.

Access Type for Endovascular Repair in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Does Not Affect Major Morbidity or Mortality

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on access type when treating ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Our study's objective was to evaluate if the type of access in ruptured AAAs affected outcomes.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2009 to 2018 for all ruptured AAAs treated with an index EVAR. Procedures were grouped by access type: percutaneous, open, and failed percutaneous that converted to open access. Patients with iliac access, both percutaneous and open access, and concurrent bypass were excluded. Baseline characteristics, procedure details, and outcomes were collected. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There were 1,206 ruptured AAAs identified-739 (61.3%) was performed by percutaneous access, 416 (34.5%) by open access, and 51 (4.2%) by failed percutaneous that converted to open access. Percutaneous access, compared with open access and failed percutaneous access, respectively, had the shortest operative time (min, median) (111 vs. 138 vs. 180, P < 0.001) and was most often performed under local anesthesia (16.7% vs. 5% vs. 9.8%, P < 0.001). The amount of contrast used was similar between the approaches. Univariable analysis comparing percutaneous access, open access, and failed percutaneous access showed differences in 30-day mortality (19.9% vs. 24.8% vs. 39.2%, P = 0.002), postoperative complications (33.7% vs. 40.2% vs. 54%, P = 0.003), and cardiac complications (18.2% vs. 19.8% vs. 34.7%, P = 0.018). However, multivariable analysis did not show access type to have a significant effect on cardiac complications, pulmonary complications, any complications, return to the operating room, or perioperative mortality. Open access was independently associated with a prolonged length of stay (means ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.33, P = 0.012). Factors independently associated with failed percutaneous were prior bypass (odds ratio (OR) 9.77, 95% CI 2.44-39.16, P = 0.001) and altered mental status (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.17-5.15, P = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Access type for ruptured AAAs was not independently associated with major morbidity or mortality but did have a differential effect on length of stay. Access during these emergent procedures should be based on surgeon preference and experience.

Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Does Anesthesia Type Matter?

BACKGROUND

Given the various types of anesthesia used for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), we sought to determine the effect of anesthesia type in the outcomes of elective EVAR in a large multiinstitutional healthcare maintenance organization.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on all elective EVAR conducted from August 2010 to August 2017 in 14 regional hospitals of Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Patients undergoing emergent, nonelective abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair, requiring conversion to open surgery or general anesthesia were excluded from the study. Basic demographic information, medical risk factors, anesthesia type, operative data, and postoperative morbidity and mortality data were obtained for univariate and multivariate statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,536 patients underwent EVAR, of which 1,206 met inclusion criteria. A total of 788 patients underwent general anesthesia, 164 patients underwent spinal anesthesia, 82 patients underwent epidural anesthesia, and 172 patients underwent local and monitored anesthesia care (AC). There was a significant difference in length of stay and operative time when comparing local/monitored AC to general anesthesia. No significant difference was noted in 30-day morbidity or mortality among the anesthesia groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Local and regional anesthesia is a safe and effective approach for elective EVAR.

Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the benefits of a completely percutaneous approach to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), and provides an outline as to how this is performed by a multidisciplinary team of cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons at a quaternary care community hospital.

RECENT FINDINGS

Percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) as compared to EVAR utilizing surgical femoral artery exposure is associated with a significant reduction in operation time, length of stay, access site complications, patient discomfort, and procedural cost. Furthermore, PEVAR may be the preferred approach in patients presenting with aneurysm rupture, as the avoidance of general anesthesia has been associated with improved 30-day mortality. Assuming no contraindication based on vascular anatomy, clinical status, or patient preference, these findings suggest that in properly selected patients, PEVAR should be the primary method for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in both stable and unstable patients.