Back to Search
Start Over
Total percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair ("Preclose" technique).
- Source :
-
Journal of vascular surgery [J Vasc Surg] 2007 Jun; Vol. 45 (6), pp. 1095-101. Date of Electronic Publication: 2007 Mar 29. - Publication Year :
- 2007
-
Abstract
- Objective: Percutaneous access during endovascular aneurysm repair has been difficult owing to the large size of the delivery catheters. This study reports a single-center experience of totally percutaneous access during endovascular abdominal and thoracic aortic repairs using the Preclose Proglide device (Abbott Vascular, Redwood City, Calif).<br />Methods: Between December 2004 and August 2006, 262 endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs were performed. Percutaneous access was used for the introduction of 12F to 24F sheaths (4.4-mm to 8.6-mm outer diameter). The technique involved deployment of two Proglide devices before insertion of the sheath ("Preclose" technique) with the sutures left extracorporeally for closure after conclusion of the procedure. A prospectively maintained endovascular database and medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Rates of technical success, failure modes, and the overall duration of the endovascular repair compared with a similar cohort using open femoral exposures were examined.<br />Results: A total of 559 Proglide devices were used to close 279 femoral arteries, and 175 (63%) required the insertion of 18F to 24F sheaths. There were 16 failures, mainly due to obesity, device malfunction, severe calcific disease, and faulty arterial punctures, for a technical success rate of 94.3%. The success rates for 12F to 16F size sheaths were significantly higher than for the larger 18F to 24F sheaths (99.0% vs 91.4%, P<.01). For both endovascular abdominal (EVAR) and thoracic (TEVAR) aortic repairs, the Preclose technique resulted in shorter overall procedure times compared with a similar cohort in which open femoral exposures were used (EVAR, 115 vs 128 min, P<.001; TEVAR, 80 vs 112, P=.019). Despite this reduction of procedure time, the savings on the cost of operating room time was negated by the cost of the Proglide devices ($295 per device).<br />Conclusions: Percutaneous access for endovascular aortic repair is safe and feasible using the Proglide device. Although the success rates are higher for smaller size sheaths, successful closures may be obtained for up to 24F sheaths. Percutaneous access may result in shorter overall procedure times and potentially lower operating room costs, but this appears to be offset by the cost of the closure devices.
- Subjects :
- Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal economics
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal pathology
Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic economics
Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic pathology
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation economics
Cohort Studies
Equipment Design
Feasibility Studies
Female
Hemostasis, Surgical economics
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Operating Rooms economics
Patient Selection
Punctures economics
Retrospective Studies
Suture Techniques economics
Time Factors
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Treatment Outcome
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal surgery
Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic surgery
Blood Loss, Surgical prevention & control
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation adverse effects
Femoral Artery surgery
Hemostasis, Surgical instrumentation
Punctures adverse effects
Suture Techniques instrumentation
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 0741-5214
- Volume :
- 45
- Issue :
- 6
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Journal of vascular surgery
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 17398056
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.01.050