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

Cutdown is Associated with Higher 30-day Unplanned Readmissions and Wound Complications than Percutaneous Access for EVAR

BACKGROUND

A 2023 Cochrane review showed no difference in bleeding/wound infection complications, short-term mortality and aneurysm exclusion between the percutaneous and cut-down approach for femoral access in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In contrast, single-center studies have shown bilateral cutdown resulting in higher readmission rates due to higher rates of groin wound infections. Whether 30-day readmission rates vary by type of access during EVAR procedures is unknown. The goal of this study was to ascertain which femoral access approach for EVAR is associated with the lowest risk of 30-day readmission.

METHODS

The Targeted Vascular Module from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify patients undergoing EVAR for aortic disease from 2012-2021. All ruptures and other emergency cases were excluded. Cohorts were divided into bilateral cutdown, unilateral cutdown, failed percutaneous attempt converted to open and successful percutaneous access. The primary 30-day outcomes were unplanned readmission and wound complications. Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher's exact test, Chi-Square test and the Student's t-test. Multivariable analysis was performed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2021, 14,002 patients met study criteria. Most (7,395 [53%]) underwent completely percutaneous access, 5,616 (40%) underwent bilateral cutdown, 849 (6%) underwent unilateral cutdown, and 146 (1%) had a failed percutaneous access which was converted to open. Unplanned readmissions by access strategy included 7.6% for bilateral cutdown, 7.3% for unilateral cutdown, 7.8% for attempted percutaneous converted to cutdown, and 5.7% for completely percutaneous access (P < 0.001, Figure 1). After multivariable analysis, unplanned readmissions compared to percutaneous access yielded: percutaneous converted to cutdown adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.38, 95% CI [0.76-2.53], P = 0.29; unilateral cutdown AOR: 1.18, 95% CI [0.92-1.51], P = 0.20; bilateral cutdown AOR: 1.26, 95% CI [1.09-1.43], P = 0.001. Bilateral cutdown was also associated with higher wound complications compared to percutaneous access (AOR: 4.41, CI [2.86-6.79], P < 0.001), as was unilateral cutdown (AOR: 3.04, CI [1.46-6.32], P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing cutdown for EVAR are at higher risk for 30-day readmission compared to completely percutaneous access. If patient anatomy allows for percutaneous EVAR, this access option should be prioritized.

The Safety and Effectiveness of the Prostar XL Closure Device Compared to Open Groin Cutdown for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of percutaneous femoral closure with the Prostar XL for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to those of open femoral cutdown, and to evaluate factors which may predict the failure of percutaneous closure.

METHODS

Patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair for an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2005 and 2013 were included. Patient characteristics, anatomic femoral artery measurements, and postoperative complications were recorded retrospectively. Operator experience was defined with a cut-off point of >30 Prostar XL closures performed. Comparisons were made per access site.

RESULTS

A total of 443 access sites were included, with percutaneous closure used in 257 cases (58.0%) and open cutdown in 186 cases (42.0%). The complication rate was 2.7% for the percutaneous and 4.3% for the open cutdown group (P = .482). No significant differences between groups were found with respect to 30-day mortality, wound infections, thrombosis, seromas, or bleeding complications. Fourteen failures (5.4%) of percutaneous closure occurred. The success rates were similar for experienced and unexperienced operators (94.2% vs 95.5%, P = .768). Renal insufficiency was more common in the failed than in the successful percutaneous closure group (64.3% vs 24.7%, P = .003). Common femoral artery calcification or diameter, BMI, sheath size, or operator experience did not predict failure. No further complications were seen in follow-up CT at 1-3 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

The use of the Prostar XL is safe compared to open cutdown. The success rate is 94.6%. Operator experience, sheath size, obesity, or femoral artery diameter or calcification do not appear to predict a failure of percutaneous closure. Complications seem to occur perioperatively, and late complications are rare.

Multicentre International Registry of Open Surgical Versus Percutaneous Upper Extremity Access During Endovascular Aortic Procedures

OBJECTIVE

To investigate access failure (AF) and stroke rates of aortic procedures performed with upper extremity access (UEA), and compare results of open surgical vs. percutaneous UEA techniques with closure devices.

METHODS

A physician initiated, multicentre, ambispective, observational registry (SUPERAXA - NCT04589962) was carried out of patients undergoing aortic procedures requiring UEA, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement, aortic arch, and thoraco-abdominal aortic endovascular repair, pararenal parallel grafts, renovisceral and iliac vessel repair. Only vascular procedures performed with an open surgical or percutaneous (with a suture mediated vessel closure device) UEA were analysed. Risk factors and endpoints were classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery and VARC-3 (Valve Academic Research Consortium) reporting standards. A logistic regression model was used to identify AF and stroke risk predictors, and propensity matching was employed to compare the UEA closure techniques.

RESULTS

Sixteen centres registered 1 098 patients (806 men [73.4%]; median age 74 years, interquartile range 69 - 79 years) undergoing vascular procedures using open surgical (76%) or percutaneous (24%) UEA. Overall AF and stroke rates were 6.8% and 3.0%, respectively. Independent predictors of AF by multivariable analysis included pacemaker ipsilateral to the access (odds ratio [OR] 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 - 12.1; p = .026), branched and fenestrated procedure (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 - 9.6; p = .019) and introducer internal diameter ≥ 14 F (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.1 - 20.7; p = .001). Stroke was associated with female sex (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 - 9.0; p = .013), vessel diameter > 7 mm (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 - 13.8; p = .037), and aortic arch procedure (OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.7 - 31.1; p = .007). After 1:1 propensity matching, there was no difference between open surgical and percutaneous cohorts. However, a statistically significantly higher number of adjunctive endovascular procedures was recorded in the percutaneous cohort (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

AF and stroke rates during complex aortic procedures employing UEA are non-negligible. Therefore, selective use of UEA is warranted. Percutaneous access with vessel closure devices is associated with similar complication rates, but more adjunctive endovascular procedures are required to avoid surgical exposure.

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.

Translation gegen die Einbahn – Entwicklung von Simulationsmodellen für die gefäßchirurgische Ausbildung

Bei der Etablierung neuer chirurgischer Methoden und Techniken ist eine Lernkurve, die mit einer höheren Morbidität und Mortalität für die Patient:innen vergesellschaftet sein kann, eine Realität. Um im Rahmen der chirurgischen und endovaskulären Ausbildung die Lernkurve von Patient:innen auf Simulatoren zu übertragen, werden zunehmend lebensnahe Modelle angewendet und getestet. Der Nutzen derartiger Simulationen konnte in mehreren Bereichen dargestellt werden. Wir stellen in diesem Artikel die Schritte von der Konzeption bis zur Produktion und Validierung eines Simulators für ultraschallgezielte Punktionen von arteriellen und venösen Gefäßen dar. Unser Ziel war es eine preiswerte High-Fidelity-Simulation zu entwickeln, die einen möglichst kompletten und lebensnahen Ablauf einer ultraschallgezielten perkutanen Gefäßpunktion erlaubt, direktes haptisches und visuelles Feedback liefert sowie den Einsatz von einigen perkutanen Devices zulässt. Der fertige Prototyp erlaubt eine ultraschallgezielte Punktion der Vene und der Arterie, das Modell ermöglicht das Einführen und Absetzen von endovaskulären Devices und Verschlusssystemen. Eine strukturierte Ausbildung ungeachtet äußerer Einflüsse und Herausforderungen anbieten und durchführen zu können, ist im Interesse von Abteilungen und Assistenzärzten und dient letztlich der Patientensicherheit. Das Simulationstraining an lebensnahen Modellen kann hier einen wertvollen Beitrag liefern und eine willkommene Ergänzung zur klinischen Ausbildung darstellen.

The effect of percutaneouS vs. cutdoWn accEss in patients after Endovascular aorTic repair (SWEET): Study protocol for a single-blind, single-center, randomized controlled trial

Background

Endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have become the first-line treatment for aortic diseases, but current evidence is uncertain regarding whether a percutaneous approach has better outcomes than cutdown access, especially for patient-centered outcomes (PCOs). This study is designed to compare these outcomes of percutaneous access vs. cutdown access after endovascular aortic repair.

Method

The SWEET study is a randomized, controlled, single-blind, single-center non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups in two cohorts respectively. After eligibility screening, subjects who meet the inclusion criteria will be divided into Cohort EVAR or Cohort TEVAR according to clinic interviews. And then participants in two cohorts will be randomly allocated to either intervention groups receiving percutaneous access endovascular repair or controlled groups receiving cutdown access endovascular repair separately. Primary clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) is access-related complication, and primary patient-centered outcome (PCO) is time back to normal life. Follow-up will be conducted at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months postoperatively.

Discussion

The choice of either percutaneous or cutdown access may not greatly affect the success of EVAR or TEVAR procedures, but can influence the quality of life and patient-centered experience. Given the very low evidence for ClinROs and few data for PCOs, comparison of the percutaneous vs. cutdown access EVAR and TEVAR is essential for both patient-centered care and clinical decision making in endovascular aortic repair.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053161 (registered on 13th November, 2021).

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.

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.

Editor's Choice - Percutaneous Access Does Not Confer Superior Clinical Outcomes Over Cutdown Access for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a percutaneous approach has better clinical outcomes than surgical access for standard endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Embase were searched using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared percutaneous and cutdown endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were considered. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR), risk difference, or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method was used as appropriate. Trial sequential analysis was performed to quantify the available evidence and control for the risk of type 1 and type 2 error. Risk of bias was assessed with the revised tool developed by Cochrane and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE system (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

RESULTS

Four RCTs were identified, reporting a total of 368 patients and 530 access sites. Meta-analysis showed no difference in access site complications or infection, post-operative bleeding/haematoma, access related arterial injury, femoral artery occlusion, pseudo-aneurysm, or peri-operative mortality between percutaneous and cutdown EVAR. Seroma/lymphorrhoea was significantly less frequent after percutaneous EVAR (0%) compared with cutdown EVAR (3%; OR 0.18 [95% CI 0.04-0.83]) and the procedure time was significantly shorter (MD -11.53 minutes; 95% CI -15.71-7.34), but hospital length of stay was not different between treatments. Neither the O'Brien-Fleming boundaries nor the futility boundaries were crossed by the cumulative Z curve, and the required information size was not reached for any of the outcomes. All trials were judged to be high risk of bias or have some concerns, and the level of the body of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of percutaneous EVAR on clinically important outcomes.

Early results of a low-profile stent-graft for thoracic endovascular aortic repair

PURPOSE

To assess outcomes of a low-profile thoracic stent-graft in the treatment of thoracic aortic pathologies.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients with aortic thoracic pathologies treated with the RelayPro device in two university hospitals between October 2018 and July 2019.

RESULTS

23 patients (65% men; mean age 63.4 ± 15 years) were treated. Pathologies included aortic dissections (n = 10), 5 residual type A (22%) and 5 type B (22%), 6 degenerative aortic aneurysms (26%), 4 penetrating aortic ulcers (17%), and aortic erosion, intramural hematoma and aortic rupture (n = 1 and 4% in each case). Two cases (9%) were emergent and two urgent. Proximal landing was achieved in zones 0 (4%), 1 (4%), 2 (43%), and 3 (26%). Five grafts were frozen elephant trunk extensions. Technical success was 100% with accurate device deployment in the intended landing zone of the aortic arch in all 23 patients and with no Ia/III endoleaks and three (13%) type II endoleaks. Apposition was adequate in 96%. Two patients had post-implantation syndromes (one fever, one leukocytosis). Mean follow-up was 11.6 ± 3.7 months (range, 2-16) with no other complications, secondary interventions or conversions to open surgery. There was no 30-day mortality and no aortic-related mortality; all-cause mortality was 4% during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

A 3-4 French reduced profile in the current generation of stent-grafts facilitates TEVAR particularly in patients with smaller vessels access. Early safety and effectiveness outcomes are favorable, even in endpoints such as deployment accuracy and apposition which may be surrogates for longer-term clinical success and durability.

The long-term implications of access complications during endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Access issues are one of the most common complications of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, contemporary rates as well as risk factors for complications and the subsequent impact of access complications on mortality are poorly described.

METHODS

We studied all EVAR for intact abdominal aortic aneurysms without prior aortic surgery in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2011 and 2018. We studied factors associated with access complications (thrombosis, embolus, wound infection, hematoma, and conversion to cutdown), as well as the interaction with female sex and the impact on survival using multilevel logistic regression and propensity weighting. Multiple imputation was used for missing data.

RESULTS

There were 33,951 EVAR during the study period (91% elective, 9% symptomatic); most cases (70%) involved an attempt at percutaneous access on at least one side, with 30% bilateral cutdowns and 0.1% iliac conduits. There were 1553 patients (4.6%) who experienced at least one access complication. Access complications were almost twice as common in female patients (7.5% vs 3.9%; P < .001). The factors associated with access complications included female sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.6; P < .001), age (OR, 1.05 per 5 years; 95% CI, 1.02-1.1; P < .01), aortouni-iliac device (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P < .01), smoking (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7; P < .01), body mass index of less than 16 (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5; P = .001), dual antiplatelet therapy (1.3; 95% CI, 1.02-1.6 P = .03), prior infrainguinal bypass (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7; P < .01), and beta blocker use (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.03-1.4; P = .02). Conversion from percutaneous access to open cutdown was associated with higher rates of complications than planned open cutdown (8.6% vs 2.9%; P < .001). In propensity-weighted analysis, percutaneous access was associated with significantly lower odds of access complications in women (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.96; P = .03). Patients who experienced an access complication had more than four times the odds of perioperative death (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.5-7.1; P < .001), and a 60% higher risk of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.1; P = .001). In addition to death, patients with access site complications had higher rates of other major complications, including reoperation during the index hospitalization (19% vs 1.2%; P < .001), myocardial infarction (3.5% vs 0.7%; P < .001), stroke (0.8% vs 0.2%; P < .001), acute kidney injury (12% vs 3%; P < .001), and reintubation (5.7% vs 0.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although access complications are infrequent in the current era, they are associated with both perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality. Female patients in particular are at high risk of access complications, but may benefit from percutaneous access.

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.

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Comprehensive Review

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) can be defined as an abnormal, progressive dilatation of the abdominal aorta, carrying a substantial risk for fatal aneurysmal rupture. Endovascular aneurysmal repair (EVAR) for AAA is a minimally invasive endovascular procedure that involves the placement of a bifurcated or tubular stent-graft over the AAA to exclude the aneurysm from arterial circulation. In contrast to open surgical repair, EVAR only requires a stab incision, shorter procedure time, and early recovery. Although EVAR seems to be an attractive solution with many advantages for AAA repair, there are detailed requirements and many important aspects should be understood before the procedure. In this comprehensive review, fundamental information regarding AAA and EVAR is presented.

Pivotal Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of the MANTA Vascular Closure Device During Percutaneous EVAR and TEVAR Procedures

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA percutaneous vascular closure device in patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: The SAFE MANTA Study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02908880) was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter trial in patients undergoing endovascular interventions using large-bore sheaths (transcatheter aortic valve replacement, PEVAR, or TEVAR) at 20 sites in North America. Patient selection intended to test the MANTA device in populations without morbid obesity, severe calcification, or a severely scarred femoral access area. Of the 263 patients enrolled in the primary analysis cohort, 53 (20.2%) patients (mean age 74.9±8.9 years; 41 men) underwent PEVAR (n=51) or TEVAR (n=2) procedures and form the cohort for this subgroup analysis. Per protocol a single MANTA device was deployed in all PEVAR/TEVAR cases. Results: The mean time to hemostasis in the PEVAR/TEVAR cohort was 35±91 seconds, with a median time of 19 seconds vs 24 seconds in the overall SAFE MANTA population. The MANTA device met the definition for technical success in 52 (98%) of 53 PEVAR/TEVAR cases compared with 97.7% in the overall SAFE MANTA population. One (1.9%) major complication (access-site stenosis) occurred in this subgroup compared to 14 (5.3%) events in the SAFE population. In the PEVAR/TEVAR group, 1 pseudoaneurysm was noted prior to discharge, another at 30-day follow-up, and one at 60 days. One (1.9%) of the 3 minor pseudoaneurysms was treated with ultrasound-guided compression and the other 2 required no treatment. Conclusion: The MANTA device demonstrated a short time to hemostasis and low complication rates compared with published literature results of other percutaneous closure devices. Time to hemostasis and complication rates were comparable between the PEVAR/TEVAR patients and the full SAFE MANTA study cohort. The MANTA device provides reliable closure with a single percutaneous device for PEVAR/TEVAR procedures.

Clinical and economic outcomes of ProGlide compared with surgical repair of large bore arterial access

Aim: This study compared real-world complication rates, hospitalization duration and costs, among patients undergoing arterial repair using the Perclose ProGlide (ProGlide) versus surgical cutdown (Cutdown). Materials & methods: Retrospective study of matched patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement/repair, endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, thoracic endovascular aortic repair or balloon aortic valvuloplasty with arterial repair by either ProGlide or Cutdown between 1 January 2013 and 24 April 2017. Results: Infections and blood transfusions were lower in the ProGlide cohort. Patients in the ProGlide cohort had a 42.5% shorter index hospitalization, which corresponded to US$14,687 lower costs. Conclusion: The use of ProGlide for arterial repair was associated with significantly lower transfusion rates, shorter index hospitalization and lower hospitalization costs compared with surgical cutdown.

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

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endovascular aortic repairs (pEVARs) are associated with access site complications. Two-device technique using 2 Perclose devices has been well established. Combined Perclose and Angioseal technique has been described as well. We sought to determine whether a hybrid Perclose and Angioseal closure technique would safely and effectively establish hemostasis in large-bore arteriotomies up to 20F.

METHODS

Patients were identified as candidates for percutaneous access based on preoperative computed tomography findings, perioperative ultrasound of femoral vessels, or a combination of the 2 modalities. Prior to sheath insertion, 1 Perclose device was predeployed. At the end of pEVAR, device sheath and introducer were withdrawn over a 0.035″ wire, and partially deployed Perclose was fully deployed. The sheath and introducer were fully withdrawn and the arteriotomy was closed with a 6F Angioseal vascular closure device and completion deployment of the Perclose. Patients were followed at day 1 and day 30 and at least 1 year postintervention.

RESULTS

A composite end point of complications was defined as an access site-related bleed or hematoma that required blood transfusion or an extended hospital stay, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, dissection, or retroperitoneal hematoma. The combined technique was initially successful in 44/45 arteriotomies (97.8%) in 24/25 patients (96.0%) with no conversions to cutdown. Sheath sizes ranged from 10F to 20F outer diameter (OD), with an average of 15.89F OD. The single-device failure was caused by a failure of the footplate to catch during deployment in the Angioseal with a 20F arteriotomy. Consequently, that was the only patient in which this closure was attempted for an arteriotomy larger than 19F. There were no early or late complications in this series.

CONCLUSIONS

Large-bore arteriotomies may be safely and effectively closed using a hybrid percutaneous closure technique for sheaths up to 19F OD. Evaluation of this technique in closure of large-bore arteriotomies is ongoing and further investigation is needed to assess the value of this closure in 20F OD sheaths and above.

Preoperative risk score for access site failure in ultrasound-guided percutaneous aortic procedures

OBJECTIVE

The factors associated with access site failure after ultrasound-guided percutaneous access for aortic endograft procedures remain poorly characterized. We developed a prediction model to risk stratify patients for access site failure.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective institutional review of consecutive patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR), or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) from 2014 to 2016. We excluded patients undergoing direct aortic access through sternotomy and patients treated with physician-modified endografts, given reporting restrictions. Our primary outcome was groin access site failure, which included bleeding and thrombosis. An 8-point risk model was created for access site failure using multivariable fractional polynomials and internally validated using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

We identified 469 femoral arteries from 247 patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair procedures (EVAR, 75%; FEVAR, 8.0%; TEVAR, 17%). Surgeons performed percutaneous access in 97.2% of the femoral arteries, with 99.6% ultrasound use. Twenty-seven (5.9%) access site failures occurred (17 bleeding, 10 thrombosis), all treated with groin cutdown, for a successful percutaneous femoral artery access rate of 94%. Of the 215 patients with attempted bilateral percutaneous access, 90% had successful bilateral access. However, FEVAR had lower rates of successful bilateral access (FEVAR, 78%; EVAR, 91%; TEVAR, 94%; P = .03). Factors independently associated with percutaneous access site failure were femoral artery outer wall diameter (per millimeter increase: odds ratio [OR], 0.003 [0.0002-0.1]; P < .001), femoral artery stenosis >50% (OR, 22.3 [2.7-183.2]; P < .01), and urgent/emergent intervention (OR, 3.6 [1.2-11.0]; P = .03). A risk prediction model based on these criteria produced a C statistic of 0.89, a Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit of 0.99, and a Brier score of 0.04. Excluding treatment for ruptured aneurysms, cutdown for access failure and planned initial groin cutdown resulted in longer postoperative lengths of stay and higher rates of access-related readmission, return to operating room, groin infection, and myocardial infarction compared with successful percutaneous access. There was no difference in major adverse events between planned initial groin cutdown and cutdown after failure; however, the small number of patients in these two comparison groups limits the statistical power to detect a difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous ultrasound-guided access can be safely performed in almost all patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures, but access site failures do occur. This risk score can help users select patients with high likelihood of success, identify patients who need close scrutiny with postclosure femoral duplex ultrasound, and provide patient guidance about risk of unplanned groin cutdown.

A clinical update on the mid-term clinical performance of the Ovation endograft

INTRODUCTION

The Ovation stent-graft uncouples the steps of fixation and sealing via a pair of polymer-filled inflatable rings. Apart from the well-documented early results, newer data emerged for mid-term results of Ovation and are presented in this review.

AREAS COVERED

Aim of this article was to report all current studies with the mid-term results of the particular endograft, the incidence of complications and failure, and discuss their management.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The Ovation stent-graft exhibits very satisfactory clinical mid-term results in abdominal aortic aneurysms treated within the instructions-for-use. It can also have a very promising role in challenging neck anatomies with conical shape and presence of thrombus or calcification. However, this should be not considered a panacea and long-term results are needed to validate this intriguing aspect.

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.