Prospective evaluation of automated vascular analysis for ilio-femoral artery lesions before and after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair.
Ankle brachial index
Endovascular aneurysm repair
Femoral artery
Fistula
Haematoma
Iliac artery
Leg
Surgical wound infection
Tomography
Journal
Journal of cardiothoracic surgery
ISSN: 1749-8090
Titre abrégé: J Cardiothorac Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265113
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Aug 2024
28 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
13
05
2024
accepted:
20
08
2024
medline:
31
8
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
28
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study was conducted to evaluate the differences between pre- and postoperative access conditions in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR). Between December 2021 and October 2023, PEVAR was performed on 61 patients using the Perclose ProStyle (Abbott Vascular). Enhanced computed tomography and ankle-brachial index tests were performed preoperatively and postoperatively. The inner diameter and area of the iliofemoral artery were automatically measured, and the pre- and postoperative values were compared (114 legs). The same analysis was performed on 12 legs with previous groin operations; open surgical EVAR was performed in 9 legs, an endarterectomy of the femoral artery in 1, and a femoropopliteal bypass in the other leg. All patients were discharged without surgical site infections, lymphatic fistulas, or retroperitoneal haematomas. There were no significant differences between the pre-and postoperative inner diameter and inner area of the external iliac artery and common femoral artery. There were no significant differences between the preoperative and postoperative ankle-brachial index tests. In 12 legs with a previous groin operation, the postoperative ankle-brachial index tests and inner diameter and area of the external iliac artery and common femoral artery were statistically equal to the preoperative values. This study can support the safety of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair, even in patients with redo groin operations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study was conducted to evaluate the differences between pre- and postoperative access conditions in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR).
METHODS
METHODS
Between December 2021 and October 2023, PEVAR was performed on 61 patients using the Perclose ProStyle (Abbott Vascular). Enhanced computed tomography and ankle-brachial index tests were performed preoperatively and postoperatively. The inner diameter and area of the iliofemoral artery were automatically measured, and the pre- and postoperative values were compared (114 legs). The same analysis was performed on 12 legs with previous groin operations; open surgical EVAR was performed in 9 legs, an endarterectomy of the femoral artery in 1, and a femoropopliteal bypass in the other leg.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All patients were discharged without surgical site infections, lymphatic fistulas, or retroperitoneal haematomas. There were no significant differences between the pre-and postoperative inner diameter and inner area of the external iliac artery and common femoral artery. There were no significant differences between the preoperative and postoperative ankle-brachial index tests. In 12 legs with a previous groin operation, the postoperative ankle-brachial index tests and inner diameter and area of the external iliac artery and common femoral artery were statistically equal to the preoperative values.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study can support the safety of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair, even in patients with redo groin operations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39198872
doi: 10.1186/s13019-024-03013-1
pii: 10.1186/s13019-024-03013-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
497Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Lederle FA, Freischlag JA, Kyriakides TC, Matsumura JS, Padberg FT, Kohler TR, et al. Long-term comparison of endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1988–97. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1207481 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1207481
pubmed: 23171095
Schermerhorn ML, O’Malley AJ, Jhaveri A, Cotterill P, Pomposelli F, Landon BE. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare Population. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:464–74. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0707348 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707348
pubmed: 18234751
EVAR trial participants. EVAR trial participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus openrepair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:2179–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66627-5 .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66627-5
Torsello GB, Kasprzak B, Klenk E, Tessarek J, Osada N, Torsello GF. Endovascular suture versus cutdown for endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective randomized pilot study. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0741-5214(02)75454-2 .
doi: 10.1016/s0741-5214(02)75454-2
pubmed: 12844093
Ichihashi T, Ito T, Kinoshita Y, Suzuki T, Ohte N. Safety and utility of total percutaneous endovascular aortic repair with a single Perclose ProGlide closure device. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63:585–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2015.08.111 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.08.111
pubmed: 26506938
Cao Z, Wu W, Zhao K, Zhao J, Yang Y, Jiang C, et al. Safety and Efficacy of totally Percutaneous Access compared with open femoral exposure for endovascular aneurysm repair: a Meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2017;24(2):246–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1526602816689679 .
doi: 10.1177/1526602816689679
pubmed: 28164730
O’Donnell TFX, Deery SE, Boitano LT, Schermerhorn ML, Siracuse JJ, Clouse WD, et al. The long-term implications of access complications during endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73(4):1253–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2020.08.033 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.08.033
pubmed: 32889076
Lee WA, Brown MP, Nelson PR, Huber TS, Seeger JM. Midterm outcomes of femoral arteries after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair using the preclose technique. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47:919–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.12.029 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.12.029
pubmed: 18328666
Nikolsky E, Mehran R, Halkin A, Aymong ED, Mintz GS, Lasic Z, et al. Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(6):1200–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.048 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.048
pubmed: 15364320
Tiroch KA, Matheny ME, Resnic FS. Quantitative impact of Cardiovascular Risk factors and Vascular Closure devices on the femoral artery after repeat Cardiac catheterization. Am Heart J. 2010;159(1):125–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2009.10.023 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.10.023
pubmed: 20102878
pmcid: 2818977
Hosaka A, Kato M, Motoki M, Sugai H, Okubo N. Quantified aortic luminal irregularity as a predictor of complications and prognosis after endovascular aneurysm repair. Medicine. 2016;95(9):e2863. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002863 .
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002863
pubmed: 26945368
pmcid: 4782852
Goto T, Fujimura H, Shintani T, Shibuya T. Successful chimney endovascular aortic repair with reconstruction of three visceral branches for huge saccular juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm after trans-thoracoabdominal esophagectomy. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024;19(1):276. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02784-x .
doi: 10.1186/s13019-024-02784-x
pubmed: 38704597
pmcid: 11071143
Lederle FA, Kyriakides TC, Stroupe KT, Freischlag JA, Padberg FT Jr, Matsumura JS, et al. Open versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2126–35. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1715955 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1715955
pubmed: 31141634
van Schaik TG, Yeung KK, Verhagen HJ, de Bruin JL, van Sambeek MRHM, Balm R, et al. Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:1379–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2017.05.122 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.05.122
pubmed: 29061270
Ide T, Masada K, Kuratani T, Sakaniwa R, Shimamura K, Sawa Y, et al. Risk analysis of Aneurysm Sac Enlargement caused by type II endoleak after endovascular aortic repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2021;77:208–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2021.06.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.06.013
pubmed: 34461238
Ide T, Shimamura K, Kuratani T, Shijo T, Sakaniwa R, Watanabe Y, et al. Impact of the patency of Inferior Mesenteric artery on 7-Year outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028221121748 .
doi: 10.1177/15266028221121748
pubmed: 36120997
Samura M, Morikage N, Mizoguchi T, Takeuchi Y, Ueda K, Harada T, et al. Identification of anatomical risk factors for type II endoleak to Guide Selective Inferior Mesenteric Artery Embolization. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;48:166–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2017.10.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2017.10.016
pubmed: 29275128
Biebl M, Lau LL, Hakaim AG, Oldenburg WA, Klocker J, Neuhauser B, et al. Midterm outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in octogenarians: a single institution’s experience. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(3):435–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2004.05.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2004.05.021
pubmed: 15337870
Zenunaj G, Traina L, Acciarri P, Mucignat M, Scian S, Alesiani F, et al. Superficial femoral artery Access for Infrainguinal Antegrade Endovascular interventions in the hostile groin: a prospective Randomized Study. Ann Vasc Surg. 2022;86:127–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2022.04.017 .
doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2022.04.017
pubmed: 35460853
Youn YJ, Khalid S, Azrin M, Lee J. Stenosis caused by suture-mediated Vascular Closure device in an angiographic normal common femoral artery: its mechanism and management. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2019;53(1):58–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538574418791883 .
doi: 10.1177/1538574418791883
pubmed: 30092748
Al-Khatib WK, Zayed MA, John Harris E, Dalman RL, Lee JT. Selective use of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair in women leads to fewer groin complications. Ann Vasc Surg. 2012;26(4):476–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2011.11.026 .
doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2011.11.026
pubmed: 22437069