Ronald D Baxter1, Spencer K Hansen2, Cara E Gable3, J Micheal DiMaio4, William P Shutze4, Dennis R Gable5. 1. Department of Graduate Medical Education - General Surgery, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 2. Department of Graduate Medical Education - Vascular Surgery, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 3. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 4. Division of Vascular Surgery, Baylor Scott and White Heart Hospital, Texas Vascular Associates, Plano, TX. 5. Division of Vascular Surgery, Baylor Scott and White Heart Hospital, Texas Vascular Associates, Plano, TX. Electronic address: dennis.gable@bswhealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.