Taku Ichihashi1, Tsuyoshi Ito2, Yoshihisa Kinoshita3, Takahiko Suzuki3, Nobuyuki Ohte4. 1. Department of Cardiology, Toyohashi Heart Center, Toyohashi, Japan; Department of Cardio-Renal Medicine and Hypertension, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan. 2. Department of Cardio-Renal Medicine and Hypertension, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan. Electronic address: tuyosiito@gmail.com. 3. Department of Cardiology, Toyohashi Heart Center, Toyohashi, Japan. 4. Department of Cardio-Renal Medicine and Hypertension, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of total percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) with a single Perclose ProGlide device (Abbot Vascular, Santa Clara, Calif) compared with endovascular aortic repair with surgical cutdown (SEVAR). METHODS: The study included 50 abdominal aortic aneurysm patients who were treated with PEVAR with a single Perclose ProGlide device and 96 patients treated with SEVAR. Technical success was defined as successful arterial closure of the common femoral artery without the need for adjunctive surgical or endovascular procedures. The rates of complications, including bleeding requiring transfusion, infection, pseudoaneurysm, paresthesia, and lymphocele, as well as the operating room time and hospital duration were compared between the PEVAR and SEVAR groups. RESULTS: Technical success was obtained in all patients in the PEVAR group. One patient in the SEVAR group needed surgical repair due to access site bleeding. Complication rates were similar between the groups (4% in the PEVAR vs 8% in the SEVAR; P = .495). The PEVAR group had significantly shorter operating room times (153 ± 47 minutes vs 211 ± 88 minutes, P < .001) and hospital lengths of stay (6.7 ± 6.8 days vs 9.3 ± 4.5 days, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SEVAR, PEVAR with a single ProGlide device is a safe procedure with a shorter operating room time and hospital stay, without increasing access site complications.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of total percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) with a single Perclose ProGlide device (Abbot Vascular, Santa Clara, Calif) compared with endovascular aortic repair with surgical cutdown (SEVAR). METHODS: The study included 50 abdominal aortic aneurysmpatients who were treated with PEVAR with a single Perclose ProGlide device and 96 patients treated with SEVAR. Technical success was defined as successful arterial closure of the common femoral artery without the need for adjunctive surgical or endovascular procedures. The rates of complications, including bleeding requiring transfusion, infection, pseudoaneurysm, paresthesia, and lymphocele, as well as the operating room time and hospital duration were compared between the PEVAR and SEVAR groups. RESULTS: Technical success was obtained in all patients in the PEVAR group. One patient in the SEVAR group needed surgical repair due to access site bleeding. Complication rates were similar between the groups (4% in the PEVAR vs 8% in the SEVAR; P = .495). The PEVAR group had significantly shorter operating room times (153 ± 47 minutes vs 211 ± 88 minutes, P < .001) and hospital lengths of stay (6.7 ± 6.8 days vs 9.3 ± 4.5 days, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SEVAR, PEVAR with a single ProGlide device is a safe procedure with a shorter operating room time and hospital stay, without increasing access site complications.
Authors: Georgios Karaolanis; Ioannis D Kostakis; Demetrios Moris; Viktoria-Varvara Palla; Konstantinos G Moulakakis Journal: Int J Angiol Date: 2018-01-22