Search

Purpose: To evaluate the closure success rate's outcomes with suture-mediated vascular closure device Perclose ProGlide in patients undergoing aortic or iliac artery endovascular repair using large delivery systems (>21F)., Materials and Methods: We screened all the patient records in aortic databases at 2 centers who had undergone vascular interventions via ProGlide for percutaneous femoral access >21F between 2016 and 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the delivery system size: large (L) (22F-23F) and extra-large (XL) (24F-26F). Demographics, anatomical details, and outcome of percutaneous access were evaluated., Results: Included were 239 patients: 121 in the L group and 118 the XL group. Intraprocedural conversion to open surgery because of bleeding was necessary in 2% L and 6% XL patients (p=0.253). Severe femoral artery calcification was the sole risk factor for converting to open surgery (odds ratio=23.44, 95% confidence interval=1.49-368.17, p=0.025). In all, 2% of L and 3% of XL (p=0.631) did require late percutaneous intervention due to stenosis (all treated with balloon angioplasty). Overall, 3% developed pseudoaneurysm treated conservatively in all except one patient requiring surgical repair. Hematoma and groin infection were observed in 9% and 1%, respectively; none required surgical therapy., Conclusion: A femoral arterial defect after accessing the artery via a large bore sheath (22F-26F) can be closed successfully with ProGlide in more than 90% of patients. Severe femoral artery calcification is a risk factor for conversion to open surgery caused by bleeding., Clinical Impact: This study adds evidence on efficacy of accessing the artery via a large bore sheath (22-26F) secured by ProGlide. In more than 200 patients conversion to open surgery was necessary in only 4%. Severe femoral artery calcification was the sole risk factor for converting to open surgery. Our findings encourage physicians to choose the percutaneous access even in patients requiring the use of large bore sheath., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Martin Czerny is a consultant to Terumo Aortic, Medtronic, Endospan, and NEOS; received speaking honoraria from Bentley and Cryolife; and is a shareholder of TEVAR Ltd and Ascense Medical. Bartosz Rylski is a consultant to Terumo Aortic and shareholder of Ascense Medical.

Purpose: This single-center study aimed to assess patients who underwent intentional percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (pEVAR) with Hybrid Technique combining a single Perclose (Abbott, Abbott Park, Illinois) Suture-Mediated Closure Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) and compare outcomes with the standard Dual Perclose technique. Materials and Methods: Consecutive elective pEVAR patients treated from November 2022 to November 2023, with healthy femoral accesses and introducer sheaths ≤20 French (F) outer diameter, were included. Coin-toss randomization determined whether a combination of single Perclose Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F (Hybrid Technique) or the standard double Perclose Devices (Dual Perclose) was used. In Hybrid Technique, a single Perclose device was positioned at 12 o'clock; a single Angio-Seal VIP 8F was placed after sheaths removal. Dual Perclose followed standard procedure. Primary endpoints included immediate hemostasis, sheath diameter differences, access conversion rate, technical success, and cost analysis., Results: The study involved 60 pEVAR patients (median age=78, interquartile range [IQR]=72-85 years) within the inclusion criteria. In 14 (24%) cases, only 1 femoral access was studied. There were 106 pEVAR accesses, with 58 (54.7%) in the Hybrid Technique group and 48 (45.3%) in the Dual Perclose group. Both groups exhibited homogeneity in pre-operative characteristics and sheath diameter (Hybrid Technique-16F vs Dual Perclose-18F; p=0.202). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the Hybrid Technique group vs 87.5% for the Dual Perclose group (p=0.006). Surgical access conversion was unnecessary. Technical success was 100%, with all 6 femoral bleeding cases after Dual Perclose resolved endovascularly, using additional devices. Cost analysis showed a median cost of 330 euros (IQR=0) for the Hybrid Technique group vs 384 euros (IQR=360-456) for the Dual Perclose group (p<0.001). Thirty-day mortality was 3%, in 2 fragile patients, without access-related complications. Multivariate analysis identified Dual Perclose access (odds ratio [OR]=35.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]=18.3-36.8; p<0.001) and obesity (OR=19.7; 95% CI=1.4-23.9.5; p<0.001) as independent risk factors for immediate hemostasis failure. Median follow-up was 134 days (IQR=41-227), with 1 Hybrid Technique case (2%) successfully treated with thrombin injection for a small femoral pseudoaneurysm after 62 days., Conclusions: The elective Hybrid Technique with combination of single Perclose Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F during pEVAR in selected patients appears to be non-inferior to the standard Dual Perclose procedure. It demonstrates a positive trend in reducing immediate hemostasis failure and costs. Both procedures achieved technical success and avoiding surgical access conversions., Clinical Impact: This study introduces a novel elective hybrid technique combining a single Perclose device with a single Angio-Seal VIP 8Fr for percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic interventions. Results for hybrid technique showed 100% technical success and efficient immediate hemostasis, while costing less than standard dual Perclose procedure. Both procedures did not require surgical conversions. Despite being a single-center study, it demonstrates potential benefits of the intentional application of this hybrid technique towards minimally invasiveness. Obesity and dual Perclose technique were identified as independent risk factors for hemostasis failure, reaffirming the hybrid technique procedure's efficacy as well as and non-inferiority to standard procedure., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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

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.

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the suture-mediated ProGlide device in closure of the brachial artery after endovascular interventions. Materials and Methods: From 2016 to 2017, a pilot study was performed using the ProGlide to achieve hemostasis after percutaneous access of distal brachial arteries >4 mm in diameter. In an interim analysis, the results were compared to a matched control group taken from a 60-patient historical cohort who underwent brachial artery access and manual compression to achieve hemostasis between 2014 and 2017. The primary outcome was access-related reintervention and the secondary outcome was the incidence of access-site complications. Results: Seven patients (mean age 67.9 years; 6 men) were enrolled in the study before it was stopped in 2017. Four patients experienced 6 access-site complications (neuropathy, hematoma, occlusion, and pseudoaneurysm). These resulted in 3 access-related reinterventions: surgical evacuation of a hematoma, thrombectomy of the occluded brachial artery, and surgical repair of the pseudoaneurysm. In the interim comparison to the 19 matched patients (mean age 61.9 years; 6 men), the ProGlide group had proportionally more patients experiencing access-related complications (57% vs 16% for manual compression, p=0.035) and resultant reinterventions (43% vs 11%, p=0.064). Based on this data the trial was stopped. Conclusion: Considering this experience, it is not advisable to use the ProGlide in transbrachial endovascular interventions due to the high incidence of complications and access-related reinterventions.

Purpose: To determine the feasibility, perioperative resource utilization, and safety of a fast-track endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) protocol in well-selected patients., Methods: Between October 2014 and May 2016, the LIFE (Least Invasive Fast-track EVAR) registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02224794) enrolled 250 patients (mean age 73±8 years; 208 men) in a fast-track EVAR protocol comprised of bilateral percutaneous access using the 14-F Ovation stent-graft, no general anesthesia, no intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and next-day discharge. The primary endpoint was major adverse events (MAE) through 30 days. The target performance goal for the MAE endpoint was 10.4%., Results: Vascular access, stent-graft delivery, and stent-graft deployment success were 100%. A total of 216 (86%) patients completed all elements of the fast-track EVAR protocol. Completion of individual elements was 98% for general anesthesia avoidance, 97% for bilateral percutaneous access, 96% for ICU avoidance, and 92% for next-day discharge. Perioperative outcomes included mean procedure time of 88 minutes, median blood loss of 50 mL, early oral nutrition (median 6 hours), early mobilization (median 8 hours), and short hospitalization (median 26 hours). Fast-track EVAR completers had shorter procedure time (p<0.001), less blood loss (p=0.04), faster return to oral nutrition (p<0.001) and ambulation (p<0.01), and shorter hospital stay (p<0.001). With 241 (96%) of the 250 patients returning for the 30-day follow-up, the MAE incidence was 0.4% (90% CI 0.1% to 1.8%), significantly less than the 10.4% performance goal (p<0.001). No aneurysm rupture, conversion to surgery, or aneurysm-related secondary procedure was reported. There were no type III endoleaks and 1 (0.4%) type I endoleak. Iliac limb occlusion was identified in 2 (0.8%) patients. The 30-day hospital readmission rate was 1.6% overall., Conclusion: A fast-track EVAR protocol was feasible in well-selected patients and resulted in efficient perioperative resource utilization with excellent safety and effectiveness.

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.