Retrospective Evaluation of Percutaneous Access for TEVAR and EVAR: Time to Make it the Standard Approach?

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction To evaluate the safety of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair and the relationship of access site characteristics to complications

Materials and Methods All patients undergoing percutaneous TEVAR, EVAR and FEVAR procedures from January 2010 to May 2016 were retrospectively analysed for incidence of complications and their relationship to various access site characteristics like access artery size, degree of vessel calcification, skin to artery distance and sheath to artery ratio. Hemostasis occurring within 15 min after suture closure with or without manual compression was defined as primary hemostasis.

Results 92 patients with 142 femoral access sites were included in the study. Median follow-up was 28.13 months (range 2.5 – 76.7 months, Mean 32.39, SD – 21.66 months). Introducer system size ranged from 12F to 25F. Primary haemostasis was achieved in 97.1 % (138/142) of the total femoral access sites. Four access sites (2.8 %) had to be closed surgically; in all 4 cases the introducer systems was ≥ 18F. Two of these access sites had been operated upon previously. Late complications including inguinal hematoma (n = 7), wound infection (n = 1), scrotal hematoma (n = 1), pseudoaneurysm (n = 4) and late bleeding (n = 4) occurred in 17 access sites (11.9 %), of which 13 were managed conservatively. On account of the low complication rate, no correlation between the evaluated variables and observed complications could be established.

Conclusion Percutaneous endovascular aortic repair is feasible and safe irrespective of the size of the introducer sheath and the nature of aorto-iliac pathology. The technical success rate is high and the incidence of complications is low. Early complications are most often associated with sheath sizes ≥ 18 F. The majority of the late complications can be treated conservatively.

Key points: 

• Percutaneous endovascular aortic repair is feasible and safe.

• Technical success rate is high and complication rate is low.

• Vascular closure device failure in the occasional patient may necessitate surgical intervention.

Citation Format

• Thomas RP, Kowald T, Schmuck B et al. Retrospective Evaluation of Percutaneous Access for TEVAR and EVAR: Time to Make it the Standard Approach?. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2017; 189: 347 – 355

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung Überprüfung der Sicherheit von perkutanen endovaskulären aortalen Prozeduren und des Einflusses von Zugangscharakteristika auf Komplikationen.

Material und Methoden Alle Patienten, welche sich von Januar 2010 bis Mai 2016 einer perkutanen TEVAR, EVAR und FEVAR Prozedur unterzogen haben, wurden retrospektiv ausgewertet in Bezug auf die Komplikationshäufigkeiten unter Berücksichtigung der Zugangs-charakteristika wie Gefäßdurchmesser, Ausmaß vorhandener Gefäßverkalkungen, Abstand Hautoberfläche zum Zugangsgefäß sowie des Verhältnisses von Gefäßdurchmesser zum Einführbesteck. Hämostase mit oder ohne manuelle Kompression innerhalb von 15 Minuten nach Gefäßnahtverschluss wurde als primäre Hämostase definiert.

Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 92 Patienten mit 142 femoralen Zugängen in die Studie eingeschlossen. Die Mediane Nachbeobachtungszeit betrug 28,13 Monaten (range 2,5 – 76,7 Monate; Mittel 32,39, SD 21,66 Monate). Die Größe des Einführsystems variierte zwischen 12 und 25F. Eine primäre Hämostase wurde in 97,1 % (138/142) der femoralen Zugänge erreicht; vier Zugänge (2,8 %) mussten chirurgisch verschlossen werden; bei allen 4 Zugängen waren die Einführbestecke ≥ 18F, zwei der vier Leisten waren voroperiert. Spätkomplikationen waren Leistenhämatome (n = 7), Wundinfekt (n = 1), Skrotalhämatom (n = 1), Pseudoaneurysmen (n = 4) sowie Nachblutungen (n = 4), diese wurden bei 17 Zugangswegen (11,9 %) beobachtet, wovon 13 rein konservativ behandelt werden konnten. Auf Grund der niedrigen Komplikationsrate ergaben sich keine Zusammenhänge zwischen den Zugangscharakteristika und den stattgehabten Komplikationen.

Zusammenfassung Perkutane Stentgraftimplantationen sind unabhängig von der Größe des verwendeten Einführsystems und der vorliegenden Aortenpathologie sicher durchführbar. Es besteht eine hohe technische Erfolgsrate bei einer niedrigen Komplikationsrate. Ein Versagen des Nahtverschlusssystems ist häufiger bei verwendeten Einführsystemen ≥ 18F. Die Mehrzahl der Spätkomplikationen kann konservativ behandelt werden.

Kernaussagen: 

• Perkutane Stentgraftimplantationen sind sicher durchführbar

• Die technische Erfolgsrate ist hoch und die Komplikationsrate niedrig

• Ein Versagen des Nahtverschlusssystems im Einzelfall bedarf der chirurgischen Intervention

• References

• 1 Haulon S. Hassen Khodja R. Proudfoot CW. et al. A systematic literature review of the efficacy and safety of the Prostar XL device for the closure of large femoral arterial access sites in patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular aortic procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 41: 201-213
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Etezadi V. Katzen BT. Naiem A. et al. Percuataneous suture mediated closure versus surgical arteriotomy in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22: 142-147
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Berchera CF. Barshes NR. Pisimisis G. et al. Predicting the learning curve and failures of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2013; 57: 72-76
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Metcalfe MJ. Brownrigg JRW. Black SA. et al. Unselected percutaneous access with large vessel closure for endovascular aortic surgery: experience and predictors of technical success. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2012; 43: 378-381
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Eisenack M. Umscheid T. Tessarek J. et al. Percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: a prospective evaluation of safety, efficiency and risk factors. J Endovasc Ther 2009; 16: 708-713
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Mousa AY. Campbell JE. Broce M. et al. Predictors of percutaneous access failure requiring open femoral surgical conversion during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2013; 58: 1213-1219
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Georgiadis GS. Antoniou GA. Papaioakim M. et al. A meta-analysis of outcome after percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using different sheaths or endograft delivery systems. J Endovasc Ther 2011; 18: 445-459
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Lee WA. Brown MP. Nelson PR. et al. Midterm outcomes of femoral arteries after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair using Preclose technique. J Vasc Surg 2008; 47: 919-923
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Perdikides TP. Georgiadis GS. Avgerinos ED. et al. Percutaneous endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms: clinical evaluation and literature results. Minim Invasive Ther 2012; 21: 342-350
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Jahnke T. Schäfer JP. Charalambous N. et al. Total percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair with dual 6F Perclose AT preclosing technique: a case control study. J Vasc Inter Radiol 2009; 20: 1292-1298
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Nelson PR. Kracjer Z. Kansal N. et al. A multicentric, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial). J Vasc Surg 2014; 59: 1181-1193
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Pratesi G. Barbante M. Pulli R. et al. Italian Percutaneous EVAR (IPER) Registry: outcomes of 2381 percutaneous femoral access sites’ closure of aortic stent graft. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2015; 56: 889-898
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Malkawi AH. Hinchliffe RJ. Holt PJ. et al. Percutaneous access for endovascular aneurysm repair: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010; 39: 676-682
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Biancari F. Andrea DV. Di Marco C. et al. Meta-analyses of randomized trials on the efficacy of vascular closure devices after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. Am Heart J 2010; 159: 518-531
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Starnes BW. Andersen CA. Ronsivalle JA. et al. Totally percutaneous aortic aneurysm repair: experience and prudence. J Vasc Surg 2006; 43: 270-276
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Howell M. Villareal R. Krajcer Z. Percutaneous access and closure of femoral access artery sites associated with endoluminal repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc ther 2001; 8: 68-74
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Torsello GB. Kaspryak B. Klenk E. et al. Endovascular suture versus cutdown for endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective randomized pilot study. J Vasc Surg 2003; 38: 78-82
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Morasch MD. Kibbe MR. Evans ME. et al. Percuataneous repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2004; 40: 12-16
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Quinn SF. Kim J. Percutaneous femoral closure following stentgraft placement: use of perclose device. Cardiovasc Interven Radiol 2004; 27: 231-236
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Rijkee MP. Statius van Eps RG. Wever JJ. et al. Knippenberg. Predictors of failure of closure in percutaneous EVAR using the Prostar XL percutaneous vascular surgery device. Eur J Endovasc Surg 2015; 49: 45-49
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Skagius E. Bosnjak M. Bjorck M. et al. Percutaneous closure of large femoral artery access with Prostar XL in thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2013; 46: 558-563
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Thomas C. Steger V. Heller S. et al. Safety and Efficacy of the Prostar XL Vascular closure Device for Percutaneous closure of large arterial access sites. Radiol Res Pract 2013; 2013: 875484
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Chakfe N. Georg Y. Commentary on ‘Predictors of failure of closure in Percutaneous EVAR using the Prostar XL percutaneous vascular surgery device’. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2015; 49: 50-51
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Walker TG. Kalva SP. Yeddula K. et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Written by the Standards of Practice Committee for the Society of Interventional Radiology and Endorsed by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21: 1632-1655
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar