A Single Center Review of a Total Transfemoral Approach to Upper Extremity Access in Branched and Fenestrated Physician Modified Endografts.
Journal
Annals of vascular surgery
ISSN: 1615-5947
Titre abrégé: Ann Vasc Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8703941
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
25
03
2022
revised:
29
05
2022
accepted:
30
05
2022
pubmed:
10
7
2022
medline:
15
11
2022
entrez:
9
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Aortic aneurysms are normally treated by an endovascular approach. Due to the lack of devices and increasing experience, there is a growing number of complex aneurysms undergoing repair by physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Previously, our practice was to target visceral vessels exclusively through upper extremity access. We have since then shifted to an all transfemoral approach when possible. This study aims to show the operative benefits of transfemoral only approaches. Patients who underwent a PMEG at a tertiary center between 2015 and 2020 were included. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on branched vessel approach-transfemoral only versus axillary or composite (axillary and femoral). Forty-one patients had a pararenal or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) and 15 patients had more complex TAAA. Primary outcomes were operative time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, contrast, and blood loss. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and major adverse events. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between approach type and the main outcomes. Fifty-six patients were included with 48% (n = 27) in the transfemoral group and 52% (n = 29) in the axillary/composite group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Intraoperative outcomes revealed significant increase in the average operative time (418 vs. 246 min, P < 0.001), in radiation exposure (2,755 vs. 1,740 mGy, P = 0.03), in fluoroscopy time (108 vs. 74 min, P = 0.01) and in blood loss (579 vs. 202 cc, P = 0.002) in the axillary/composite group compared to the transfemoral group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or major adverse events including stroke. This study shows a transfemoral approach to complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair as opposed to axillary/composite approach has decreased operative time, radiation exposure, and fluoroscopy time and no significant differences in 30-day mortality or major adverse events. When treating complex aneurysms, improving efficiency is important to minimize morbidity to patients and operators.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Aortic aneurysms are normally treated by an endovascular approach. Due to the lack of devices and increasing experience, there is a growing number of complex aneurysms undergoing repair by physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Previously, our practice was to target visceral vessels exclusively through upper extremity access. We have since then shifted to an all transfemoral approach when possible. This study aims to show the operative benefits of transfemoral only approaches.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent a PMEG at a tertiary center between 2015 and 2020 were included. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on branched vessel approach-transfemoral only versus axillary or composite (axillary and femoral). Forty-one patients had a pararenal or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) and 15 patients had more complex TAAA. Primary outcomes were operative time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, contrast, and blood loss. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and major adverse events. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between approach type and the main outcomes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty-six patients were included with 48% (n = 27) in the transfemoral group and 52% (n = 29) in the axillary/composite group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Intraoperative outcomes revealed significant increase in the average operative time (418 vs. 246 min, P < 0.001), in radiation exposure (2,755 vs. 1,740 mGy, P = 0.03), in fluoroscopy time (108 vs. 74 min, P = 0.01) and in blood loss (579 vs. 202 cc, P = 0.002) in the axillary/composite group compared to the transfemoral group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or major adverse events including stroke.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows a transfemoral approach to complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair as opposed to axillary/composite approach has decreased operative time, radiation exposure, and fluoroscopy time and no significant differences in 30-day mortality or major adverse events. When treating complex aneurysms, improving efficiency is important to minimize morbidity to patients and operators.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35809740
pii: S0890-5096(22)00314-4
doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2022.05.041
pmc: PMC10339283
mid: NIHMS1901434
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
117-126Subventions
Organisme : NLM NIH HHS
ID : T15 LM011271
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc.
Références
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Jan;73(1S):4S-52S
pubmed: 32615285
J Vasc Surg. 2006 Feb;43(2):217-22; discussion 223
pubmed: 16476589
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2018 Jun;59(3):360-367
pubmed: 29327566
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Aug;66(2):360-366
pubmed: 28268106
Ann Surg Treat Res. 2019 Feb;96(2):47-52
pubmed: 30746351
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Jan;61(1):80-7
pubmed: 25095747
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Sep;56(3):601-7
pubmed: 22554425
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Jul;72(1):36-43
pubmed: 32081484
Lancet. 2004 Sep 4-10;364(9437):843-8
pubmed: 15351191
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Sep;72(3):849-858
pubmed: 32144014
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Dec;46(6):1103-1110; discussion 1110-1
pubmed: 18154984
Ann Thorac Surg. 1998 Oct;66(4):1204-9
pubmed: 9800807
J Vasc Surg. 2020 May;71(5):1763-1770.e2
pubmed: 31740188
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004 May;27(5):484-91
pubmed: 15079770
J Vasc Surg. 2006 Mar;43(3):433-9
pubmed: 16520151
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1955 Nov;17(5):307-18
pubmed: 13275887
J Vasc Surg. 2021 May;73(5):1498-1503
pubmed: 33248122
J Vasc Surg. 2020 May;71(5):1489-1502.e6
pubmed: 31611106
J Endovasc Ther. 2013 Apr;20(2):159-69
pubmed: 23581756
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Aug;56(2):565-71
pubmed: 22840907
J Am Med Assoc. 1953 Jun 20;152(8):673-6
pubmed: 13044606
Ann Thorac Surg. 1997 Jun;63(6):1533-45
pubmed: 9205145
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Jan;67(1):2-77.e2
pubmed: 29268916
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020 Feb;59(2):295-300
pubmed: 31870690
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Apr;59(4):1168-73
pubmed: 24268717
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2014 Aug 19;10:493-505
pubmed: 25170271
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Apr;55(4):935-46; discussion 945-6
pubmed: 22244859
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Nov;72(5):1593-1601
pubmed: 32249044
J Vasc Surg. 1986 Mar;3(3):389-404
pubmed: 3951025
Ann Thorac Surg. 2002 Nov;74(5):S1877-80; discussion S1892-8
pubmed: 12440685
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Mar;69(3):635-643
pubmed: 30714569
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Nov;68(5):1297-1307
pubmed: 29706473
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Aug;70(2):369-380
pubmed: 30718110
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019 Dec;42(12):1678-1686
pubmed: 31455986
JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1926-9
pubmed: 9851478
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1996 Nov-Dec;7(6):819-23
pubmed: 8951748
Perspect Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther. 2009 Sep;21(3):157-67
pubmed: 19965792
J Endovasc Ther. 2010 Aug;17(4):449-55
pubmed: 20681756
J Endovasc Ther. 2001 Feb;8(1):25-33
pubmed: 11220464