Search

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).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.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.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.

Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk surgical patients. TCAR has been shown to have similar complication rates for stroke and mortality compared with carotid endarterectomy and lower complication rates compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting. A relative contraindication for carotid stenting includes heavily calcified lesions. Intravascular lithotripsy has been approved for use in other vascular beds for endovascular treatment of heavily calcified lesions. In the present report, we have demonstrated the application of intravascular lithotripsy for heavily calcified carotid lesions, enabling treatment with TCAR for those who otherwise might be at high risk of transfemoral carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy.

First-line therapy for aneurysm, dissection, or rupture of the descending thoracic aorta is now by the endovascular approach. Retrograde insertion of the endograft, through access from the femoral arteries, is the preferred approach. This case presents a new, innovative technique for delivery of an endoprosthesis into the descending thoracic aorta when hostile anatomy prevents delivery from the femoral arteries, iliac arteries, or infrarenal abdominal aorta in a patient not suitable for open repair. Keywords: Thoracic aortic aneurysm, Alternative access sites for endovascular aortic repair, Hostile anatomy

Objective To date, no single scoring system for predicting 30-day mortality in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) has been endorsed by any vascular society or proven to definitively predict treatment futility. Three recently developed scoring systems for predicting 30-day mortality in patients with rAAA have been validated by their respective institutional data. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of these rAAA mortality risk scores using an independent community hospital dataset. Methods Consecutive patients presenting with rAAA at Saint Joseph Hospital between January 1, 2009, and February 28, 2017, were used for validation. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between risk score and odds of death. Confidence intervals were calculated using the Wilson method. Comparisons were made between models by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curves. Results Complete data from 38 patients was used for accuracy evaluation. The AUCs for the Dutch Aneurysm Score, Harborview Medical Center score, and Vascular Surgery Group of New England (VSGNE) score were 0.762, 0.792, and 0.860, respectively, for all patients. When evaluating 30-day mortality for patients undergoing ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair, the scores were 0.802, 0.893, and 0.927, respectively. The difference between scores did not reach statistical significance. All three indexes significantly associated with the mortality rate using logistic regression. Conclusions Each risk score accurately predicted 30-day mortality using the independent dataset. The results suggest that the VSGNE score is the most accurate; however, differences in accuracy between each scoring system did not reach statistical significance. The Harborview Medical Center scoring system is based only on preoperative variables. Although the VSGNE score had the highest AUC in this analysis, it is dependent on intraoperative variables. The authors favor a single risk assessment tool, with consensus vascular societal approval, that incorporates preoperative variables and includes a tool for the prediction of treatment futility.