Christopher M Huff1, Mitchell J Silver1, Gary M Ansel2,3. 1. OhioHealth Heart and Vascular Institute, Riverside Methodist Hospital, 3535 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. OhioHealth Heart and Vascular Institute, Riverside Methodist Hospital, 3535 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH, USA. gary.ansel@ohiohealth.com. 3. System Medical Chief: Vascular Ohio Health, Columbus, OH, USA. gary.ansel@ohiohealth.com.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Kevin T Stroupe; Frank A Lederle; Jon S Matsumura; Tassos C Kyriakides; Yvonne C Jonk; Ling Ge; Julie A Freischlag Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2012-05-27 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: R Durieux; H Van Damme; N Labropoulos; A Yazici; V Legrand; A Albert; J-O Defraigne; N Sakalihasan Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Dominique B Buck; Eleonora G Karthaus; Peter A Soden; Klaas H J Ultee; Joost A van Herwaarden; Frans L Moll; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Elliot L Chaikof; Ronald L Dalman; Mark K Eskandari; Benjamin M Jackson; W Anthony Lee; M Ashraf Mansour; Tara M Mastracci; Matthew Mell; M Hassan Murad; Louis L Nguyen; Gustavo S Oderich; Madhukar S Patel; Marc L Schermerhorn; Benjamin W Starnes Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: L T Burgers; A C Vahl; J L Severens; A M Wiersema; P W M Cuypers; H J M Verhagen; W K Redekop Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 7.069