Search

Background: In endovascular valve and aortic repair, vascular access through a percutaneous approach has become the competing technique to an open surgical approach. The effect on postoperative complications and surgical site infections (SSIs) has been investigated, but randomized evidence is lacking. The objective was to investigate whether percutaneous access of the common femoral artery (CFA) with a percutaneous closure device would decrease the number of SSIs compared with open surgical access of the CFA in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)., Methods: Patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm suitable for EVAR were randomized to open or percutaneous access of the main device (MD) through the CFA. Through the contralateral side, access was obtained with the other technique than the one for which the MD was randomized. The primary outcome was number of SSIs. Secondary outcomes were wound complications, visual analog scale for pain scores, and standardized wound assessment scores during follow-up. Preoperative screening culture and groin biopsy specimens were obtained from all patients., Results: Both groups contained 137 groins. SSI rate was 1.5% in the open group vs 0% in the percutaneous group. For MDs only, SSI rate was 3.1% (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-347; P = .34). Wound complications were comparable in both groups. Neither nasal nor groin Staphylococcus aureus carriage had a significant effect on SSIs, Southampton Wound Assessment score, or visual analog scale score. Adjusted pain score was 0.69 lower, in favor of percutaneous access. Wound assessment was better after 2 weeks (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-12.44; P = .046), also in favor of percutaneous access., Conclusions: Percutaneous access of the CFA does not reduce the number of SSIs. It does, however, reduce pain and improve wound healing with less inflammation 1 day and 2 weeks after EVAR, respectively., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.