Article

Total percutaneous endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using Perclose ProGlide closure devices.

Division of Vascular Surgery, VA Western NY Healthcare System, State University of New York at Buffalo, New York 14215, USA.
Journal of Endovascular Therapy (Impact Factor: 3.59). 05/2007; 14(2):184-8. DOI: 10.1583/1545-1550(2007)14[184:TPEROA]2.0.CO;2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To describe a technique for access site closure in percutaneous abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair using double Perclose ProGlide devices to overcome the problems associated with the bulky delivery system and braided suture of the antecedent (Prostar) device.
After obtaining guidewire access, 2 Perclose ProGlide sutures are deployed at 90 degrees to each other. The appropriate sheaths are placed over the stiff guidewires. After the stent-graft procedure is completed, an assistant holds pressure while the knots are tightened with the stiff guidewire still in the artery. Once the second knot is tightened with the knot pusher and after confirming adequate hemostasis, the wire is removed, pressure is applied, and heparin reversed. This method has been used in 17 consecutive patients (age range 65-85 years) undergoing endovascular AAA repair. One patient needed patch angioplasty and 2 required small incisions for additional suture placements (81% primary success rate for total percutaneous repair, 90% success rate for all sites).
We have found the double Perclose ProGlide technique to be easy to use, safe, and feasible for total percutaneous AAA repair. More experience with longer follow-up is needed to assess its potential to replace the Perclose Prostar closure device for total percutaneous AAA repairs.

0 Followers
 · 
171 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (P-EVAR) in an "unselected" population of patients using Prostar XL closure device, comparing our results with the literature data reported for open EVAR (O-EVAR) and P-EVAR in selected populations. We prospectively enrolled 200 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms to be treated with the P-EVAR procedure, without any selection criteria. Four hundred percutaneous femoral accesses using the Prostar XL closure device were performed. The early follow-up protocol consisted of a Doppler ultrasound (US) examination. Later evaluations were performed with US and computed tomography. Technical success was achieved in all percutaneous accesses (100 %). Ten early complications related to access site were recorded (10/400; 2.5 %): four pseudoaneurysms and six cases of lower limb ischaemia. Five of ten complications occurred in patients presenting calcification of the common femoral arteries, whereas 4/10 were in patients with "complex" groin anatomy. Eight of ten complications occurred at the access site of the main body of the prosthesis using a sheath size >20 Fr. Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair in "unselected" patients is safe and efficient, with a very low risk of access-related complications, comparable to P-EVAR in selected populations and to the best O-EVAR series.
    La radiologia medica 04/2014; 119(11). DOI:10.1007/s11547-014-0399-7 · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of the major concerns regarding the preclose technique is its influence on the diameter of the accessed common femoral artery (CFA). The aim of our study was to evaluate the CFA diameter change after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) with the use of the preclose technique. From February 2012 to September 2013, 192 patients who underwent PEVAR with the preclose technique were reviewed. The patients were followed postoperatively with computed tomographic angiography 1, 6, and 12 months after PEVAR, and only those with complete computed tomography studies were included. For each access site, the inner diameter (ID) and outer diameter (OD) of the CFA were measured, and the diameters at various time periods were compared. In addition, the patient cohort was divided into four subgroups according to two parameters: the sheath size (12-16F and 18-24F) and the number of closure devices used for the preclose technique (two devices, more than two devices). The differences in diameter change between the subgroups were analyzed. The significance of the diameter change and the influences of the two parameters were analyzed statistically with the use of the paired t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and two-way analysis of variance. Fifty-eight patients fulfilled the study criteria. No significant influence on the ID of the accessed CFAs was observed at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months (9.0 ± 1.75 mm, 9.1 ± 1.70 mm, 8.9 ± 1.72 mm, and 9.0 ± 1.68 mm, respectively). By contrast, a significant increase in initial OD occurred 1 month after PEVAR but gradually decreased in size in the following 11 months (13.0 ± 2.37 mm, 16.4 ± 3.44 mm, 14.2 ± 3.06 mm, and 13.5 ± 2.42 mm, respectively). Both the sheath size and the number of closure devices significantly affected the OD change (P < .001 and P = .037, respectively). The effect produced by the number of closure devices extended to 6 months after PEVAR, but the effect of the sheath size ceased before that time. This study demonstrates that PEVAR with the use of the preclose technique does not influence the ID of the accessed CFA, whereas the OD changes gradually over 1 year. These results may indicate that future endovascular interventions can be performed with the use of the same access without the risk of vascular narrowing.
    Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter 02/2014; 60(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.01.035 · 2.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. It is, therefore, critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. More recently endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs) have become a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graft is introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. The technique may, however, be less applicable in patients with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification. This review aims to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous access with standard femoral artery access in elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched July 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 6) and clinical trials databases. Reference lists of retrieved articles were checked. Only randomised controlled trials were considered. The primary intervention was a totally percutaneous endovascular repair. All device types were considered. This was compared against standard femoral artery endovascular repair. Only studies investigating elective repairs were considered. Studies reporting emergency surgery for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) and those reporting aorto-uni-iliac repairs were excluded. All data were collected independently by two review authors. Owing to the small number of trials identified, no formal assessment of heterogeneity or sensitivity analysis was conducted. Only one trial met the inclusion criteria, involving a total of 30 participants, 15 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 15 treated by the standard femoral cut-down approach. There were no significant differences between the two groups at baseline.No mortality or failure of aneurysm exclusion was observed in either group. Three wound infections occurred in the standard femoral cut-down group, whereas none were observed in the percutaneous group. This was not statistically significant. Only one major complication was observed in the study, a conversion to the cut-down technique in the percutaneous access group. No long-term outcomes were reported. One episode of a bleeding complication was reported in the percutaneous group. Significant differences were detected in surgery time (percutaneous 86.7 ± 27 minutes versus conventional 107.8 ± 38.5 minutes; P < 0.05).The included study had a small sample size and failed to report adequately the method of randomisation, allocation concealment and the pre-selected outcomes. Only one small study was identified, which did not provide adequate evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of the percutaneous approach compared with endovascular aneurysm repairs. This review has identified a clear need for further research into this potentially beneficial technique. One ongoing study was identified in the search, which may provide an improved evidence base in the future.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2014; 2(2):CD010185. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010185.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor