Percutaneous Closure Devices for Endovascular Repair of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Prospective, Non-randomized Comparative Study

A single center study of the efficacy and safety of Pro-Glide used for closure in thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with previous groin intervention

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Pro-Glide, a suture-mediated vascular closure device, regarding technical success and complications in patients who had undergone aortic intervention and had previous groin intervention (PGI).

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-five patients who underwent percutaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair via the femoral artery and were closed with the Pro-Glide device were analyzed retrospectively. PGI was defined as a history of open surgical access to the femoral artery or wide sheath (>18 F) placement due to endovascular or valvular intervention. The patients were divided into two groups 38 cases with PGI and 97 cases without PGI.

RESULTS

The overall success rate of closure of the femoral artery with Pro-Glide was not statistically significant between the two groups (93.8% vs 92.1%, p = .711). Sheath sizes were compared between the groups and PGI (+) group had significantly higher sheath sizes compared to PGI (-) group (24.3 ± 1.1 F vs 23.8 ± 1.0 F, p = .011). Three patients in the PGI (+) group and six patients in the PGI (-) group experienced technical failure of the percutaneous femoral approach. Femoral complications were seen after the procedures in four patients in the PGI (+) group and four in the PGI (-) group. The PGI (+) group had a higher complication rate when compared to the PGI (-) group; however, this was not statistically significant (p = .181).

CONCLUSION

The present study was conducted on a significantly larger sample compared to previous studies and the findings suggest that the Pro-Glide vascular closure device is a safe option for patients with a history of PGI and may not be considered as a contraindication.

Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. Therefore, it is critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (EVARs) are now a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graft is introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This Cochrane Review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. However, the technique may be less applicable in people with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification. This is an update of the previous Cochrane Review published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of totally percutaneous access compared to cut-down femoral artery access in people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods The latest search was 8 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in people diagnosed with an AAA comparing totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down access endovascular repair. We considered all device types. We only considered studies investigating elective repairs. We excluded studies reporting emergency surgery for ruptured AAAs and those reporting aorto-uni-iliac repairs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. short-term mortality, 2. failure of aneurysm exclusion and 3. wound infection. Secondary outcomes were 4. major complications (30-day or in-hospital); 5. medium- to long-term (6 and 12 months) complications and mortality; 6. bleeding complications and haematoma; and 7. operating time, duration of intensive treatment unit (ITU) stay and hospital stay. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the seven most clinically relevant primary and secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies with 318 participants met the inclusion criteria, 189 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 129 treated by cut-down femoral artery access. One study had a small sample size and did not adequately report the method of randomisation, allocation concealment or preselected outcomes. The other two larger studies had few sources of bias and good methodology; although one study had a high risk of bias in selective reporting. We observed no clear difference in short-term mortality between groups, with only one death occurring overall, in the totally percutaneous group (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 36.18; 2 studies, 181 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported failure of aneurysm exclusion. There was one failure of aneurysm exclusion in the surgical cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.02; 1 study, 151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For wound infection, there was no clear difference between groups (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.59; 3 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference between percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access groups in major complications (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.41; 3 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), bleeding complications (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.64; 2 studies, 181 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or haematoma (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.05; 2 studies, 288 participants). One study reported medium- to long-term complications at six months, with no clear differences between the percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access groups (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.65; 1 study, 135 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We detected differences in operating time, with the percutaneous approach being faster than cut-down femoral artery access (mean difference (MD) -21.13 minutes, 95% CI -41.74 to -0.53 minutes; 3 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported the duration of ITU stay and hospital stay, with no clear difference between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Skin puncture may make little to no difference to short-term mortality. There is probably little or no difference in failure of aneurysm exclusion (failure to seal the aneurysms), wound infection, major complications within 30 days or while in hospital, medium- to long-term (six months) complications and bleeding complications between the two groups. Compared with exposing the femoral artery, skin puncture may reduce the operating time slightly. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate and low as a result of imprecision due to the small number of participants, low event rates and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to clinical heterogeneity. As the number of included studies was limited, further research into this technique would be beneficial.

Totally percutaneous endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Purpose

The PEVAR Trial demonstrated that compared to open femoral exposure, elective percutaneous endovascular AAA repair (ePEVAR) is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and access site complications. We hypothesized that PEVAR for ruptured AAA (rPEVAR) may also improve perioperative morbidity compared to open femoral exposure (rEVAR). There are currently no reports that evaluate the utility and outcomes of rPEVAR.

Materials and methods

From 2015 to 2021, all patients who underwent an endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA at a single institution were included in the study and grouped into rPEVAR and rEVAR. Demographics, procedural details (successful preclose technique, conversion to femoral cutdown), postoperative variables (blood transfusion, ICU and hospital length of stay) and short-term outcomes (30-day major adverse events (30-day MAE) and 30-day femoral access-site complications (30-day FAAC)) were collected and compared with 50 historical ePEVAR patients from the PEVAR Trial. Statistical significance was determined using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables.

Results

35 patients were identified (21 rPEVAR; 14 rEVAR), 86% were male with a mean age of 72 ± 9 years. All patients underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair with 100% technical success. Seventeen patients (49%) presented with evidence of hemorrhagic shock and 22 patients (63%) had blood transfusion. 30-day MAE occurred in 12 patients (34%) (7 rPEVAR; 5 rEVAR). There was no difference in demographic, perioperative outcomes and 30-day MAE rate between rPEVAR and rEVAR patients. Compared to ePEVAR patient (from PEVAR trial), rPEVAR patients had higher rate of 30-day MAE (34% vs. 6%; p < 0.006) but no difference in 30-day FAAC (19% vs. 12%; p = 0.54). The success rate of the preclose technique was higher in ePEVAR compared to rPEVAR (96% vs. 76%; p = 0.02), but the rate of conversion to femoral cutdown was similar between the two groups (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.57).

Conclusion

Emergent rPEVAR appears to have similar outcomes when compared to rEVAR. Although patients undergoing rPEVAR have higher 30-day major adverse events rate compared to ePEVAR, the method of percutaneous femoral cannulation does not appear to increase the overall procedural or 30-day femoral artery access-site complications.

Predictors of percutaneous access-related complications in aortic endovascular procedures - 'real-world' insights and a comparison to open access

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) is becoming increasingly popular due to fewer access-related complications, shorter procedural times and length of stay (LOS). Our aim was to explore factors associated with access-related complications and their impact on procedural time and LOS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed consecutive aorto-iliac endovascular procedures in a tertiary hub comprising 2 institutions and 18 consultant vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists between 2016 - 2017. Access-related complications were defined as: bleeding requiring cutdown or return to theatre, acute limb ischaemia or common femoral artery (CFA) pseudoaneurysm requiring intervention and wound infection or dehiscence needing hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of 511 patients, 354 (69%) had a percutaneous approach via 589 CFA access sites. In this percutaneous group, access-related complications occurred in 11% of sites (65/589); Their rate varied with procedure type ranging between 3.6% to 17.6%. The most common complication was bleeding due to closure device failure in 8.5% (50/589) of access sites. When uncomplicated, percutaneous interventions were faster compared to open surgical access (p<0.0001). Operation time and median LOS (3 vs. 2 days) were longer for elective standard EVAR patients experiencing access-related complications (p=0.033). In the percutaneous group, multivariate regression analysis demonstrated significant associations between accessrelated complications and eGFR (odds ratio (OR) 0.984 [0.972-0.997], p=0.014), CFA depth (OR 1.026 [1.008-1.045], p=0.005), device used (Prostar vs. Proglide (OR 2.177 [1.236-3.832], p=0.007) and procedural type (complex vs. standard EVAR) (OR 2.017 [1.122-3.627], p=0.019). We developed a risk score which had reasonably good predictive power (C-statistic 0.716 [0.646-0.787],p<0.0001) for avoiding access complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Physiological (low eGFR level), anatomical (increased CFA depth) and technical factors (choice of device and complex procedures) were identified as predictors of access-related complications in this large retrospective series. These are important for safe selection of patients that would benefit from percutaneous access.

Comparison of percutaneous access and open femoral cutdown in elective endovascular aortic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes of percutaneous access and femoral cutdown methods for elective bifurcated endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

Between November 2013 and September 2020, a total of 152 patient (135 males, 17 females; mean age: 70.6±6, range, 57 to 87 years) who underwent endovascular repair due to infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm were retrospectively analyzed. According to femoral access type, the patients were grouped into two groups as the total percutaneous femoral access and open cutdown femoral access endovascular repair. Intra- and postoperative data were compared, including operative time, amount of contrast media, bleeding requiring transfusion, return to the operating room, access vessel complications, wound complications, and overall length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven (57.2%) femoral cutdown access repair and 65 (42.8%) percutaneous femoral access repair cases were evaluated in the study. The two groups were comparable in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics (p>0.05), except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which was more frequent in the percutaneous access group (p=0.014). After adjustment, age, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and obesity were not predictive of percutaneous access failure. Percutaneous femoral access was observed as the only preventing factor for wound infection (odds ratio=0.166, 95% confidence interval: 0.036-0.756; p=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Although femoral access preference does not affect mortality and re-intervention rates, percutaneous endovascular repair reduces operation time, hospital stay, and wound site complications compared to femoral artery exposures.

Comparison of Success Rate and Complications of Totally Percutaneous Decannulation in Patients With Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Background: Total percutaneous closure for the site of femoral arterial puncture using Perclose ProGlide (PP) has become prevalent post-percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of total percutaneous closure of the femoral artery access site post-EVAR compared with VA-ECMO.

Methods: This was a retrospective observational study conducted over 4 years, including 88 patients who underwent EVAR (64 patients) and VA-ECMO (24 patients). Perclose ProGlide devices were used in the femoral artery puncture sites closed percutaneously. In this study, technical success was defined as successful arterial closure of the common femoral artery (CFA) without additional surgical or endovascular procedures to prevent vessel leaking. Access site complications, including overt bleeding requiring transfusion or surgical intervention, minor bleeding, tinea cruris, pseudoaneurysm, and lymphocele, were recorded 24 h and 30 days after arterial closure.

Results: Each group's technical success rates were 95.8% (VA-ECMO) and 92.2% EVAR, respectively. There were no differences in the periprocedural complications of major bleeding, pseudoaneurysm, minor bleeding, acute limb ischemia, and groin infection. Furthermore, we did not observe any complications such as arterial thrombosis, dissection, stenosis, arteriovenous fistula, hematoma, groin infection, or lymphocele at the access site by following-up an ultrasound examination. There was no significant difference in the technical success rate of percutaneous closure by the PP device in the EVAR and VA-ECMO oxygenation groups. Also, no periprocedural or 30-day complications were observed at the access site of the EVAR and VA-ECMO patients.

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.

Clinical efficacy and safety of the PRO-glide device as a sUture-mediated ClosurE in Thoracic EndoVascular Aortic Repair in patients with previous groin intervention (from the PRODUCE-TEVAR Trial)

BACKGROUND

While the percutaneous approach is increasingly preferred, suture-mediated closure devices have been put into clinical practice to close the femoral artery during procedures requiring a large-sized introducer. However, scar in the groin is considered a contraindication or an exclusion criterion for percutaneous procedures. The aim of our study was to investigate the outcomes and safety of Pro-Glide device as suture-mediated closure device in patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with percutaneous femoral access ≥22 F who had previous groin intervention.

METHODS

A total of 73 patients who underwent endovascular repair with percutaneous femoral access were retrospectively included in the study. Previous groin intervention was defined as history of open surgical access or large sheath insertion (>18 F) to femoral artery because of endovascular or valvular intervention. Patients were divided into two groups as who had previous groin intervention PGI (+) and had not PGI (-).

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients [60 male (82.2%)] were included in the study. Seventeen patients had PGI, and 56 did not. When groups were compared in terms of sheath sizes, a significantly higher sheath sizes were used in PGI (+) patients (24.5 ± 1.1 F vs. 23.8 ± 0.9 F, p = 0.005). The overall success rate in the femoral approach with pre-close technique was statistically insignificant between two groups (94.1% vs. 96.4%, p = 0.55). One patient in PGI (+) group and two patients in PGI (-) had technical failure for percutaneous femoral approach. One patient (5.9%) in PGI (+) group and one patient (1.8%) in PGI (-) group had femoral complications after the procedures; however, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of complications (5.9% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Pro-Glide device may be a safe and less invasive method for femoral access in patients with PGI and might not be considered as a contraindication for patients with history of PGI.

Outcomes of Open Versus Percutaneous Access for Patients Enrolled in the GREAT Registry

BACKGROUND

Arterial access and device delivery in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have evolved from open femoral or iliac artery exposure to selective percutaneous arterial access. Although regional application of percutaneous access for these 2 procedures varies widely, the use of this technique continues to increase. Currently, differences in the use of percutaneous access between EVAR and TEVAR have not been well explored. The Gore Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) registry collected relevant data for evaluation of these issues and the comparative results between open and percutaneous approaches in regard to complication rates and length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

This study was performed via a retrospective review of patients from the GREAT registry (Clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01658787). The primary variable of this study was access site complications including postoperative hematoma, vessel dissection, and pseudoaneurysm. Patients were categorized by abdominal (EVAR) and thoracic (TEVAR) aortic procedures using percutaneous-only, cutdown-only, and combined vascular access techniques for a total of 6 groups. Standard statistical methodology was used to perform single-variable and multivariable analysis of a variety of covariates including LOS, geographical location of procedure, procedural success rate, and access sheath size.

RESULTS

Of 4,781 patients from the GREAT registry, 3,837 (80.3%) underwent EVAR and 944 (19.7%) underwent TEVAR with percutaneous-only access techniques being used in 2,017 (42.2%) and cutdown-only in 2,446 (51.2%). There was variable application of percutaneous access by geographic region with Australia and New Zealand using this technique more frequently and Brazil using percutaneous access the least. No significant difference in the rate of access site complications was detected between the 6 groups of patients in the study; however, significantly lower rates of access site complications were associated with percutaneous-only compared with both cutdown-only and combined techniques (P = 0.03). In addition, associated with significantly higher rates of access site complications was longer LOS (P < 0.01). Average LOS was 5.2 days and was higher in the TEVAR group (10.1 days) than that in EVAR (4.0 days, P < 0.05). Increased sheath size does not appear to increase the risk of access site complication.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference found in the complication rate between percutaneous and cutdown access techniques. This analysis demonstrates that percutaneous-only access is safe, has low complication rates, and has lower LOS compared with open access or combined access techniques.

Feasibility and safety of total percutaneous closure of femoral arterial access sites after veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of total percutaneous closure of the femoral artery access site after veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with the Perclose ProGlide device.This retrospective observational study during an almost 2-year period included 21 patients who underwent VA-ECMO in whom the femoral artery puncture site was closed percutaneously with Perclose ProGlide devices. Technical success was defined as successful arterial closure of the common femoral artery, without the need for additional surgical or endovascular procedures. Access site complications were recorded at 24 hours and 30 days after arterial closure, such as major bleeding requiring transfusion or surgical intervention, minor bleeding, groin infection, pseudoaneurysm, and lymphocele.Technical success was achieved in 20 patients (95.2%). One patient required surgical repair for an access site pseudoaneurysm. Eighteen femoral arteries were closed with 2 devices each, while 3 patients required the use of a third device for femoral artery access site closure to achieve adequate hemostasis. No arterial thrombosis, arterial dissection, arterial stenosis, groin infection, or arteriovenous fistula occurred during the periprocedural period (within 24 hours of arterial closure) or during 30-day follow-up.Percutaneous closure with the Perclose ProGlide device is a feasible procedure for closing femoral arterial access sites after VA-ECMO, with a low incidence of access site complications.

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.

Successful percutaneous access for endovascular aneurysm repair is significantly cheaper than femoral cutdown in a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Because of its minimally invasive nature, percutaneous femoral access for endovascular aneurysm repair (pEVAR) is currently undergoing rapid popularization. Compared with surgical cutdown for femoral access (cEVAR), it offers the advantage of faster recovery after surgery as well as a reduction in wound complications. Despite proposed advantages, the method is largely considered uneconomical because of its reliance on costly closure devices.

METHODS

There were 50 patients undergoing EVAR who were enrolled in this randomized prospective single-center trial. Each patient randomly received percutaneous access in one groin and surgical access in the other. The primary end points were access duration and cost. Secondary end points were wound complications and the postoperative pain levels.

RESULTS

Surgery was performed per protocol in 44 patients. Mean access times for pEVAR and cEVAR were 11.5 ± 3.4 minutes and 24.8 ± 12.1 minutes (P < .001), respectively. Total access costs were €559.65 ± €112.69 for pEVAR and €674.85 ± €289.55 for cEVAR (P = .016). Eight complications in six patients were attributed to cutdown, none to pEVAR (P = .02). The percutaneously accessed groin was significantly less painful at day 1 and day 5 after surgery (P < .001). An intention-to-treat analysis (N = 50 patients) included six cases of pEVAR conversion due to technical failure in three patients (6%) and change of the operative strategy in another three patients (eg, aortouni-iliac stent graft followed by crossover bypass). The intention-to-treat analysis showed shorter mean overall access time for pEVAR (pEVAR, 14.65 ± 10.20 minutes; cEVAR, 25.12 ± 11.77 minutes; P < .001) and no cost difference between the two methods (pEVAR, €651.29 ± €313.49; cEVAR, €625.53 ± €238.29; P = .65).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm proposed potential benefits attributable to the minimally invasive nature of pEVAR while demonstrating cost-effectiveness despite the additional cost of closure devices. Taking into account pEVAR failures still does not increase pEVAR costs over cEVAR. Further considering reduced postoperative pain and wound complications, the technique deserves consideration in suitable patients.

Fascia Suture Technique and Suture-mediated Closure Devices: Systematic Review

Background  The aim of the present study is to review the available data on suture-mediated closure devices (SMCDs) and fascia suture technique (FST), which are alternatives for minimizing the invasiveness of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (p-EVAR) and reduce the complications related to groin dissections. Methods  The Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for publications regarding SMCD and FST between January 1999 and December 2016. Results  We review 37 original articles, 30 referring to SMCDs (Prostar XL and Proglide), which included 3,992 patients, and 6 articles referring to FST, which include 426 patients. The two techniques are compared only in one article (100 patients). The two types of SMCDs were Prostar and Proglide. In most studies on SMCDs, the reported technical success rates were between 89 and 100%, but the complication rates varied greatly between 0 and 25%. Concerning FST, the technical success rates were also high, ranging between 87 and 99%. However, intraoperative complication rates ranged between 1.2 and 13%, whereas postoperative complication rates varied from 0.9 to 6.2% for the short-term and from 1.9 to 13.6% for the long-term. Conclusions  SMCDs and FST seem to be effective and simple methods for closing common femoral artery (CFA) punctures after p-EVAR. FST can reduce the access closure time and the procedural costs with a quite short learning curve, whereas it can work as a bailout procedure for failed SMCDs suture. The few failures of the SMCDs and FST that may occur due to bleeding or occlusion can easily be managed.

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

OBJECTIVES

The 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSIONS

A change in AAA repair technique from EVAR to PEVAR can be a cost-effective solution for Canadian hospitals.

Femoral Artery Closure Versus Surgical Cutdown for Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND To compare the outcome and complication rates of femoral artery closure and surgical cutdown for endovascular aortic repair procedures (EVAR). MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients underwent either percutaneous femoral artery closure (PA group) or surgical cutdown (SC group) for EVAR between July 2011 and June 2016 and EVAR procedures were used for all cases. Data on outcomes and complications were collected and compared. RESULTS The SC group contained 55 patients and the PA group contained 60 patients and the technical success rates were 100.0% and 98.0%, respectively. The mean operation time, time to ambulation, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the PA group (P<0.01). The estimated intraoperative blood loss and wound pain scores were significantly higher in the SC group (P<0.01). However, the PA procedure was more expensive (P<0.01). The overall incidence rate of complications was higher in the SC group (P=0.026). CONCLUSIONS The PA technique had a high success rate, shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer wound complications compared to SC. Thus, PA might be the preferred choice for selected EVAR procedures.

Common Femoral Artery Caliber Changes after Percutaneous versus Surgical Access in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in the Asian Population

BACKGROUND

Western studies showed vascular caliber changes post-endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study aims to evaluate for postoperative changes of the common femoral artery inner diameter (CFA ID) in the Asian population.

METHODS

From January 2011 to June 2016, 202 patients who underwent EVAR were reviewed. CFA IDs were evaluated at 3 fixed levels on computed tomography (CT) aortograms. Preoperative and postoperative measurements were compared. Per-groin analysis was carried out after division into percutaneous access endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) and surgical access endovascular aneurysm repair (SEVAR) groups. Independent sample t-test compared for differences in overall CFA ID changes between PEVAR and SEVAR groups. Paired sample t-test evaluated CFA ID changes in each group. P value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty patients were included, with 200 groins subsequently analyzed. The PEVAR and SEVAR groups have no significant demographic differences, except in sheath size and duration of CT aortogram follow-up. No significant differences in overall CFA ID changes comparing PEVAR and SEVAR groups (-0.12 ± 1.05 mm, -0.10 ± 0.81 mm, P = 0.36). No significant overall CFA ID changes in both PEVAR (7.92 ± 1.23 mm, 7.80 ± 1.38 mm, P = 0.34) and SEVAR groups (7.47 ± 1.44 mm, 7.36 ± 1.64 mm, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in CFA caliber changes comparing PEVAR and SEVAR. No significant CFA caliber changes in either group.

Editor's Choice - Arteriotomy Closure Devices in EVAR, TEVAR, and TAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies

OBJECTIVES

Cardiac and vascular surgery benefit from percutaneous interventions. Arteriotomy closure devices (ACDs) enable minimally invasive access to the common femoral artery (CFA). The objective of this review was to assess the differences between ACDs and surgical cut down (SCD) of the CFA regarding the number of complications, duration of surgery (DOS), and hospital length of stay (HLOS).

DESIGN

A systematic literature search with predefined search terms was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (2000-2016). All studies reporting on ACD and SCD for a puncture of the CFA of at least 12 French (Fr.) were assessed for eligibility.

METHODS

Included were randomised controlled trials and cohort studies comparing both techniques. Patient characteristics, exclusion criteria, and conversion rates were evaluated. Complications, DOS, and HLOS were compared.

MATERIALS

A total of 17 studies were included for meta-analysis, describing 7889 vascular access sites; four studies were randomised trials, two studies reported from a prospective database, and 11 studies reported retrospective cohorts.

RESULTS

ACD was associated with fewer post-operative seromas (odds ratio [OR] 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.35), less wound dehiscence (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.78), and fewer surgical site infections (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23-0.63). Post-operative pseudoaneurysms were significantly more common in the ACD group (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.55-9.44). In five of 17 studies, DOS and HLOS were not reduced in the ACD group. When all studies reporting a mean DOS and/or HLOS were compared in a non-parametric analysis, neither was significantly different.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis favours ACD regarding the number of wound complications compared with SCD in endovascular aneurysm repair, thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair, and transcatheter aortic valve repair. Treatment duration (DOS and HLOS) was not reduced in ACD. The differences are of limited clinical significance and with this equivocal quality of evidence, the ACD may be considered safe for CFA access in suitable patients.

Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. It is, therefore, critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (EVARs) are now a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graft introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. The technique may, however, be less applicable in people with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification. This is an update of the review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous access with surgical cut-down femoral artery access in elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched their Specialised Register (last searched October 2016) and CENTRAL (2016, Issue 9). We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of relevant retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials. The primary intervention was a totally percutaneous endovascular repair. We considered all device types. We compared this against surgical cut-down femoral artery access endovascular repair. We only considered studies investigating elective repairs. We excluded studies reporting emergency surgery for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and those reporting aorto-uni-iliac repairs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected all data. Owing to the small number of trials identified we did not conduct any formal sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity was not significant for any outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies with a total of 181 participants met the inclusion criteria, 116 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 65 treated by cut-down femoral artery access. One study had a small sample size and did not adequately report method of randomisation, allocation concealment or pre-selected outcomes. The second study was a larger study with few sources of bias and good methodology.We observed no significant difference in mortality between groups, with only one mortality occurring overall, in the totally percutaneous group (risk ratio (RR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 36.18; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study reported aneurysm exclusion. In this study we observed only one failure of aneurysm exclusion in the surgical cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.02; 151 participants; moderate-quality evidence). No wound infections occurred in the cut-down femoral artery access group or the percutaneous group across either study (moderate-quality evidence).There was no difference in major complication rate between cut-down femoral artery access and percutaneous groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.68; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or in bleeding complications and haematoma (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.82; 181 participants; high-quality evidence).Only one study reported long-term complication rates at six months, with no differences between the percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.15; 134 participants; moderate-quality evidence).We detected differences in surgery time, with percutaneous approach being significantly faster than cut-down femoral artery access (mean difference (MD) -31.46 minutes; 95% CI -47.51 minutes to -15.42 minutes; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study reported duration of ITU (intensive treatment unit) and hospital stay, with no difference found between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows moderate-quality evidence of no difference between the percutaneous approach compared with cut-down femoral artery access group for short-term mortality, aneurysm exclusion, major complications, wound infection and long-term (six month) complications, and high-quality evidence for no difference in bleeding complications and haematoma. There was a difference in operating time, with moderate-quality evidence showing that the percutaneous approach was faster than the cut-down femoral artery access technique. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to moderate as a result of the limited number of studies, low event numbers and imprecision. As the number of included studies were limited, further research into this technique would be beneficial. The search identified one ongoing study, which may provide an improved evidence base in the future.

Safety and Efficacy of Totally Percutaneous Access Compared With Open Femoral Exposure for Endovascular 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.

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

Purpose

Our objective was to undertake a comprehensive review of the literature and conduct an analysis of the outcomes of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair.

Methods

MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; CENTRAL; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists were searched to identify all studies providing comparative outcomes of the percutaneous technique for endovascular aneurysm repair. Success rate and access-related complications were defined as the primary outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed effect or random effects models. We conducted a network meta-analysis of different techniques for femoral access applying multivariate meta-analysis assuming consistency.

Findings

Three randomised controlled trials and 18 observational studies were identified. Percutaneous access was associated with a lower frequency of groin infection ( p < 0.0001) and lymphocele ( p = 0.007), and a shorter procedure time ( p < 0.0001) and hospital length of stay ( p = 0.03) compared with open surgical access. Moreover, percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair did not increase the risk of haematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and arterial thrombosis or dissection.

Conclusion

Percutaneous access demonstrates advantages over conventional surgical exposure for endovascular aneurysm repair, as indicated by access-related complications and hospital length of stay. Further research is required to define its impact on resource utilization, cost-effectiveness and quality of life.

Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis

BACKGROUND

Vascular closure devices (VCDs) are widely used to achieve haemostasis after procedures requiring percutaneous common femoral artery (CFA) puncture. There is no consensus regarding the benefits of VCDs, including potential reduction in procedure time, length of hospital stay or time to patient ambulation. No robust evidence exists that VCDs reduce the incidence of puncture site complications compared with haemostasis achieved through extrinsic (manual or mechanical) compression.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of VCDs versus traditional methods of extrinsic compression in achieving haemostasis after retrograde and antegrade percutaneous arterial puncture of the CFA.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (April 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. References of articles retrieved by electronic searches were searched for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which people undergoing a diagnostic or interventional procedure via percutaneous CFA puncture were randomised to one type of VCD versus extrinsic compression or another type of VCD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of trials. We resolved disagreements by discussion with the third author. We performed meta-analyses when heterogeneity (I(2)) was < 90%. The primary efficacy outcomes were time to haemostasis and time to mobilisation (mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI)). The primary safety outcome was a major adverse event (mortality and vascular injury requiring repair) (odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI). Secondary outcomes included adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 52 studies (19,192 participants) in the review. We found studies comparing VCDs with extrinsic compression (sheath size ≤ 9 Fr), different VCDs with each other after endovascular (EVAR) and percutaneous EVAR procedures and VCDs with surgical closure after open exposure of the artery (sheath size ≥ 10 Fr). For primary outcomes, we assigned the quality of evidence according to GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria as low because of serious imprecision and for secondary outcomes as moderate for precision, consistency and directness.For time to haemostasis, studies comparing collagen-based VCDs and extrinsic compression were too heterogenous to be combined. However, both metal clip-based (MD -14.81 minutes, 95% CI -16.98 to -12.63 minutes; five studies; 1665 participants) and suture-based VCDs (MD -14.58 minutes, 95% CI -16.85 to -12.32 minutes; seven studies; 1664 participants) were associated with reduced time to haemostasis when compared with extrinsic compression.For time to mobilisation, studies comparing collagen-, metal clip- and suture-based devices with extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. No deaths were reported in the studies comparing collagen-based, metal clip-based or suture-based VCDs with extrinsic compression. For vascular injury requiring repair, meta-analyses demonstrated that neither collagen (OR 2.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 16.79; six studies; 5731 participants) nor metal clip-based VCDs (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.03 to 7.95; three studies; 783 participants) were more effective than extrinsic compression. No cases of vascular injury required repair in the study testing suture-based VCD with extrinsic compression.Investigators reported no differences in the incidence of infection between collagen-based (OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.22; nine studies; 7616 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.71; three studies; 750 participants) and extrinsic compression. No cases of infection were observed in studies testing suture-based VCD versus extrinsic compression. The incidence of groin haematoma was lower with collagen-based VCDs than with extrinsic compression (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.54; 25 studies; 10,247 participants), but no difference was evident when metal clip-based (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.34; four studies; 1523 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.02; six studies; 1350 participants) were compared with extrinsic compression. The incidence of pseudoaneurysm was lower with collagen-based devices than with extrinsic compression (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 21 studies; 9342 participants), but no difference was noted when metal clip-based (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.89; six studies; 1966 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.53; six studies; 1527 participants) were compared with extrinsic compression. For other adverse events, researchers reported no differences between collagen-based, clip-based or suture-based VCDs and extrinsic compression.Limited data were obtained when VCDs were compared with each other. Results of one study showed that metal clip-based VCDs were associated with shorter time to haemostasis (MD -2.24 minutes, 95% CI -2.54 to -1.94 minutes; 469 participants) and shorter time to mobilisation (MD -0.30 hours, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.01 hours; 469 participants) than suture-based devices. Few studies measured (major) adverse events, and those that did found no cases or no differences between VCDs.Percutaneous EVAR procedures revealed no differences in time to haemostasis (MD -3.20 minutes, 95% CI -10.23 to 3.83 minutes; one study; 101 participants), time to mobilisation (MD 1.00 hours, 95% CI -2.20 to 4.20 hours; one study; 101 participants) or major adverse events between PerClose and ProGlide. When compared with sutures after open exposure, VCD was associated with shorter time to haemostasis (MD -11.58 minutes, 95% CI -18.85 to -4.31 minutes; one study; 151 participants) but no difference in time to mobilisation (MD -2.50 hours, 95% CI -7.21 to 2.21 hours; one study; 151 participants) or incidence of major adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For time to haemostasis, studies comparing collagen-based VCDs and extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. However, both metal clip-based and suture-based VCDs were associated with reduced time to haemostasis when compared with extrinsic compression. For time to mobilisation, studies comparing VCDs with extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. No difference was demonstrated in the incidence of vascular injury or mortality when VCDs were compared with extrinsic compression. No difference was demonstrated in the efficacy or safety of VCDs with different mechanisms of action. Further work is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of devices currently in use and to compare these with one other and extrinsic compression with respect to clearly defined outcome measures.

A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Access for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is obtained through surgical cutdown or percutaneously. The only devices suitable for percutaneous closure of the 20 French arteriotomies of the common femoral artery (CFA) are the Prostar(™) and Proglide(™) devices (Abbott Vascular). Positive effects of these devices seem to consist of a lower infection rate, and shorter operation time and hospital stay. This conclusion was published in previous reports comparing techniques in patients in two different groups (cohort or randomized). Access techniques were never compared in one and the same patient; this research simplifies comparison because patient characteristics will be similar in both groups.

METHODS/DESIGN

Percutaneous access of the CFA is compared to surgical cutdown in a single patient; in EVAR surgery, access is necessary in both groins in each patient. Randomization is performed on the introduction site of the larger main device of the endoprosthesis. The contralateral device of the endoprosthesis is smaller. When we use this type of randomization, both groups will contain a similar number of main and contralateral devices. Preoperative nose cultures and perineal cultures are obtained, to compare colonization with postoperative wound cultures (in case of a surgical site infection). Furthermore, patient comfort will be considered, using VAS-scores (Visual analog scale). Punch biopsies of the groin will be harvested to retrospectively compare skin of patients who suffered a surgical site infection (SSI) to patients who did not have an SSI.

DISCUSSION

The PiERO trial is a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial designed to show the consequences of using percutaneous access in EVAR surgery and focuses on the occurrence of surgical site infections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR4257 10 November 2013, NL44578.042.13.

Predictors and treatments of Proglide-related complications in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair

Purpose

To investigate the predictors and treatment of the 6-Fr Perclose Proglide-related complications (PRC) in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (pEVAR).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the PRC after pEVAR for the treatment of aortic aneurysm or dissection in our center from December 2012 to November 2013. Procedure success was defined as effective functioning of the two devices and local hemostasis. Access-related adverse events included vascular complications and device failures. Operative data and angiographic and computed tomography images were collected to assess the complications and treatment strategy.

Results

A total of 198 patients with 275 puncture sites underwent pEVAR with the 6-Fr Perclose Proglide. The procedure was successful in 178 patients (89.9%), whereas PRC occurred in 20 cases (10.1%), including 10 device failures and 10 vascular complications. An extra manual ancillary compression was conducted in 7 patients, one more device was used in 8 patients, and surgical repair of the femoral artery was performed in 5 patients. PRC had a tendency to occur in patients with body mass index (BMI)>30 kg/m² (p = 0.021), thoracic stent grafts (p = 0.038), common femoral artery (CFA) calcification (p = 0.001), CFA depth>4 cm (p = 0.001), and sheath size>20Fr (p = 0.005). Device failure-related mortality was zero. None of the access sites had complications during the midterm follow-up.

Conclusions

The pre-close technique with 6-Fr Perclose Proglide devices for pEVAR appears to be safe and effective with low technical failure and complication rates. Careful patient selection and proficiency in device manipulation might reduce the device related complications.

Percutaneous versus femoral cutdown access for endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Prior studies suggest that percutaneous access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (pEVAR) offers significant operative and postoperative benefits compared with femoral cutdown (cEVAR). National data on this topic, however, are limited. We compared patient selection and outcomes for elective pEVAR and cEVAR.

METHODS

We identified all patients undergoing either pEVAR (bilateral percutaneous access, whether successful or not) or cEVAR (at least one planned groin cutdown) for abdominal aortic aneurysms from January 2011 to December 2013 in the Targeted Vascular data set from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Emergent cases, ruptures, cases with an iliac conduit, and cases with a preoperative wound infection were excluded. Groups were compared by χ(2) test or t-test or the Mann-Whitney test where appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 4112 patients undergoing elective EVAR, 3004 cEVAR patients (73%) and 1108 pEVAR patients (27%). Of all EVAR patients, 26% had bilateral percutaneous access; 1.0% had attempted percutaneous access converted to cutdown (4% of pEVARs); and the remainder had a planned cutdown, 63.9% bilateral and 9.1% unilateral. There were no significant differences in age, gender, aneurysm diameter, or prior open abdominal surgery. Patients undergoing cEVAR were less likely to have congestive heart failure (1.5% vs 2.4%; P = .04) but more likely to undergo any concomitant procedure during surgery (32% vs 26%; P < .01) than patients undergoing pEVAR. Postoperatively, pEVAR patients had shorter operative time (mean, 135 vs 152 minutes; P < .01), shorter length of stay (median, 1 day vs 2 days; P < .01), and fewer wound complications (2.1% vs 1.0%; P = .02). On multivariable analysis, the only predictor of percutaneous access failure was performance of any concomitant procedure (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.0; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, one in four patients treated at Targeted Vascular National Surgical Quality Improvement Program centers are getting pEVAR, which is associated with a high success rate, shorter operation time, shorter length of stay, and fewer wound complications compared with cEVAR.

Complete percutaneous approach for arterial access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comparison with surgical cut-down and closure

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the immediate safety and feasibility of complete percutaneous access/closure of arteriotomy for device deployment compared to the surgical approach for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

BACKGROUND

The percutaneous approach for arterial access for device deployment in transfemoral TAVR is a potential alternative to the surgical approach.

METHODS

In 274 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR using Edward Sapien heart valve, 140 had a complete percutaneous approach using a "pre-closure" technique whereas 134 had surgical cut-down/repair for arterial access/closure of device deployment. Immediate vascular access/closure success, associated complications and clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

While overall acute success of access/closure and in-hospital access-related events were similar, significant isolated stenosis/dissection at the access site developed more frequently in the percutaneous group (7.1% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.007). Contrary, wound infections requiring prolonged antibiotics use or surgical debridement occurred more frequently in the surgical group (0.7% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.007). Although the rate of major vascular complications was not different, the surgical group developed more frequent minor bleeding (27.1% vs. 38.8%, P = 0.04) and underwent transfusion of packed red blood cells of ≤3 units (25.7% vs. 43.3%, P = 0.002). Median hospital stay was shorter in the percutaneous group (3 days vs. 4 days, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The percutaneous approach is a feasible access/closure method with a potential of lowering access site infection and bleeding, and shortening hospital stay, while maintaining similar rates of major vascular complications compared to the surgical approach.

A single-centre experience of 200 consecutive unselected patients in percutaneous EVAR

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (P-EVAR) in an "unselected" population of patients using Prostar XL closure device, comparing our results with the literature data reported for open EVAR (O-EVAR) and P-EVAR in selected populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 200 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms to be treated with the P-EVAR procedure, without any selection criteria. Four hundred percutaneous femoral accesses using the Prostar XL closure device were performed. The early follow-up protocol consisted of a Doppler ultrasound (US) examination. Later evaluations were performed with US and computed tomography.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all percutaneous accesses (100 %). Ten early complications related to access site were recorded (10/400; 2.5 %): four pseudoaneurysms and six cases of lower limb ischaemia. Five of ten complications occurred in patients presenting calcification of the common femoral arteries, whereas 4/10 were in patients with "complex" groin anatomy. Eight of ten complications occurred at the access site of the main body of the prosthesis using a sheath size >20 Fr.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair in "unselected" patients is safe and efficient, with a very low risk of access-related complications, comparable to P-EVAR in selected populations and to the best O-EVAR series.

Current update on the status of totally percutaneous aneurysm repair

The evolution of minimally invasive procedures to treat aortic aneurysms has expanded to include access interventions as well. Traditionally, groin exposures have been the standard approach for common femoral artery exposure with open cutdown; however, inherent and related complications to that approach have paved the road to the percutaneous approach. Current available evidence from the literature supports the feasibility and the safety of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR); however, predictors of success are not well defined. We should examine all available studies (both prospective and retrospective) in order to draw a conclusion and evidence-based outcome for selecting patients who would benefit the most from PEVAR.

Totally percutaneous versus standard femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. It is, therefore, critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. More recently endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs) have become a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graft is introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. The technique may, however, be less applicable in patients with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous access with standard femoral artery access in elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched July 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 6) and clinical trials databases. Reference lists of retrieved articles were checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials were considered. The primary intervention was a totally percutaneous endovascular repair. All device types were considered. This was compared against standard femoral artery endovascular repair. Only studies investigating elective repairs were considered. Studies reporting emergency surgery for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) and those reporting aorto-uni-iliac repairs were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All data were collected independently by two review authors. Owing to the small number of trials identified, no formal assessment of heterogeneity or sensitivity analysis was conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one trial met the inclusion criteria, involving a total of 30 participants, 15 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 15 treated by the standard femoral cut-down approach. There were no significant differences between the two groups at baseline.No mortality or failure of aneurysm exclusion was observed in either group. Three wound infections occurred in the standard femoral cut-down group, whereas none were observed in the percutaneous group. This was not statistically significant. Only one major complication was observed in the study, a conversion to the cut-down technique in the percutaneous access group. No long-term outcomes were reported. One episode of a bleeding complication was reported in the percutaneous group. Significant differences were detected in surgery time (percutaneous 86.7 ± 27 minutes versus conventional 107.8 ± 38.5 minutes; P < 0.05).The included study had a small sample size and failed to report adequately the method of randomisation, allocation concealment and the pre-selected outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one small study was identified, which did not provide adequate evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of the percutaneous approach compared with endovascular aneurysm repairs. This review has identified a clear need for further research into this potentially beneficial technique. One ongoing study was identified in the search, which may provide an improved evidence base in the future.

A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial)

OBJECTIVE

The first multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed and conducted to assess the safety and effectiveness of totally percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) with use of a 21F endovascular stent graft system and either an 8 F or 10 F suture-mediated closure system (the PEVAR trial, NCT01070069). A noninferiority trial design was chosen to compare percutaneous access with standard open femoral exposure.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2012, 20 U.S. institutions participated in a prospective, Food and Drug Administration-approved randomized trial to evaluate percutaneous femoral artery access and closure by a "preclose" technique in conjunction with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. A total of 151 patients were allocated by a 2:1 design to percutaneous access/closure (n = 101) or open femoral exposure (n = 50 [FE]). PEVAR procedures were performed with either the 8 F Perclose ProGlide (n = 50 [PG]) or the 10 F Prostar XL (n = 51 [PS]) closure devices. All endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures were performed with the Endologix 21 F profile (outer diameter) sheath-based system. Patients were screened by computed tomography with three-dimensional reconstruction and independent physician review for anatomic suitability and adequate femoral artery anatomy for percutaneous access. The primary trial end point (treatment success) was defined as procedural technical success and absence of major adverse events and vascular complications at 30 days. An independent access closure substudy evaluated major access-related complications. Clinical utility and procedural outcomes, ankle-brachial index, blood laboratory analyses, and quality of life were also evaluated with continuing follow-up to 6 months.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar among groups. Procedural technical success was 94% (PG), 88% (PS), and 98% (FE). One-month primary treatment success was 88% (PG), 78% (PS), and 78% (FE), demonstrating noninferiority vs FE for PG (P = .004) but not for PS (P = .102). Failure rates in the access closure substudy analyses demonstrated noninferiority of PG (6%; P = .005), but not of PS (12%; P = .100), vs FE (10%). Compared with FE, PG and PS yielded significantly shorter times to hemostasis and procedure completion and favorable trends in blood loss, groin pain, and overall quality of life. Initial noninferiority test results persist to 6 months, and no aneurysm rupture, conversion to open repair, device migration, or stent graft occlusion occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Among trained operators, PEVAR with an adjunctive preclose technique using the ProGlide closure device is safe and effective, with minimal access-related complications, and it is noninferior to standard open femoral exposure. Training, experience, and careful application of the preclose technique are of paramount importance in ensuring successful, sustainable outcomes.

The preclose technique in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To establish the efficacy and safety of the preclose technique in total percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of Medline database was conducted for series on PEVAR published between January 1999 and January 2012.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles comprising 2,257 patients and 3,606 arterial accesses were included. Anatomical criteria used to exclude patients from undergoing PEVAR were not uniform across all series. The technical success rate was 94 % per arterial access. Failure was unilateral in the majority (93 %) of the 133 failed PEVAR cases. The groin complication rate in PEVAR was 3.6 %; a minority (1.6 %) of these groin complications required open surgery. The groin complication rate in failed PEVAR cases converted to groin cutdown was 6.1 %. A significantly higher technical success rate was achieved when arterial access was performed via ultrasound guidance. Technical failure rate was significantly higher with larger sheath size (≥20F).

CONCLUSION

The preclose technique in PEVAR has a high technical success rate and a low groin complication rate. Technical success tends to increase with ultrasound-guided arterial access and decrease with larger access. When failure occurs, it is unilateral in the majority of cases, and conversion to surgical cutdown does not appear to increase the operative risk.

Maintaining a minimally invasive approach-vascular closure after trans-catheter aortic valve intervention

Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now recognised as an effective way to treat patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis when open surgical repair is not feasible or considered too high risk. Retrograde trans-femoral TAVI (TF-TAVI) requires large bore vascular access (18-24F), and successful management of the access site is key to maintaining the minimally invasive nature of the procedure. This editorial reviews the current techniques available to facilitate percutaneous vascular closure and the common complications associated with vascular access.

Percutaneous management of vascular complications in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the feasibility and safety of percutaneous management of vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

BACKGROUND

Vascular complications after TAVI are frequent and outcomes after percutaneous management of these adverse events not well established.

METHODS

Between August 2007 and July 2010, 149 patients underwent transfemoral TAVI using a percutaneous approach. We compared outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous management of vascular complications with patients free from vascular complications and performed duplex ultrasonography, fluoroscopy, and multislice computed tomography during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients (18%) experienced vascular complications consisting of incomplete arteriotomy closure (n = 19, 70%), dissection (n = 3, 11%), arterial perforation (n = 3, 11%), arterial occlusion (n = 1, 4%), and pseudoaneurysm (n = 1, 4%). Percutaneous stent graft implantation was successful in 21 of 23 (91%) patients, whereas 2 patients were treated by manual compression, 2 patients underwent urgent surgery, and 2 patients required delayed surgery. Rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days were similar among patients undergoing percutaneous management of vascular complications and those without vascular complications (9% vs. 8%, p = 1.00). After a median follow-up of 10.9 months, imaging showed no evidence of hemodynamically significant stenosis (mean peak velocity ratio: 1.2 ± 0.4). Stent fractures were observed in 4 stents (22%, type I [6%], type II [16%]) and were clinically silent in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular complications after TAVI can be treated percutaneously as a bailout procedure with a high rate of technical success, and clinical outcomes are comparable to patients without vascular complications. Stent patency is high during follow-up, although stent fractures require careful scrutiny.

Vascular closure after transcatheter aortic valve interventions--the current state of play

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an effective way to treat patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis when open surgical repair is not feasible or considered too high risk. Large bore vascular access is required (18F-24F), and successful management of this arterial access is the key to overall procedural success. We review the current state of play with regard to vascular closure following retrograde transfemoral TAVI.