Dataset Information

Prospective evaluation of automated vascular analysis for ilio-femoral artery lesions before and after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study was conducted to evaluate the differences between pre- and postoperative access conditions in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR).

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

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

This study can support the safety of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair, even in patients with redo groin operations.

SUBMITTER: Goto T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11351086 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective evaluation of automated vascular analysis for ilio-femoral artery lesions before and after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair.

Goto Takasumi T Fujimura Hironobu H Iida Takuma T Horikawa Kohei K Shintani Takashi T Shibuya Takashi T Sakaniwa Ryoto R Miyagawa Shigeru S

Journal of cardiothoracic surgery 20240828 1

<h4>Background</h4>This study was conducted to evaluate the differences between pre- and postoperative access conditions in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR).<h4>Methods</h4>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 measur ...[more]

PMID: 39198872

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repairs (TEVAR) combined with looping chimney technique (LCT) for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery.MethodsTotal of 14 patients (mean age 52.86±14.46 years; range, 27-79; 10 men, 4 women) were included in the study from December 2016 to December 2018. Aortic arch pathologies of all patients with insufficient proximal landing zone (PLZ) were repaired by TEVAR under local anesthesia, before TEVAR, the left common carotid artery (LCCA) was protected by the guiding sheath from the retrograde brachial access, after aortic stent graft deployed, chimney graft was implanted to restore LCCA by LCT if necessary. All patients underwent computed tomography angiograph (CTA) 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after surgery.ResultsPathology results of 14 patients included: type B aortic dissection (n=8), penetrating aortic ulcers (n=1), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n=1), thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n=2), and thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm (n=2). In all patients, aortic arch lesions were repaired by TEVAR; while LCCA were successfully reconstructed by the LCT. In one case, the innominate artery (IA) was simultaneously reconstructed through the same percutaneous right brachial artery (RBA) access. Coiling eliminated type Ia endoleak in 3 patients, and type II endoleak vanished by plugging left subclavian artery (LSA) in 2 patients. In four patients, the chimney stent (CG) of LCCA was partially compressed and then another bare stent was implanted to restore patency rate. The mean follow-up duration was 9.77±6.64 months (range, 0-24) and no combinations were observed in 13 patients; except in one patient who died of cerebral hemorrhage due to abnormal coagulation function.ConclusionsTEVAR combined with LCT has shown to be suitable surgical approach for aortic arch lesions. Either covered intentionally or inadvertently, the LCCA could be safely and effectively reconstructed via percutaneous RBA access. Short-term follow-up demonstrated satisfactory morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients; however, longer follow-up is required to assess the effectiveness and durability of this innovative endovascular procedure.

Project description:PurposeThe PEVAR Trial demonstrated that compared to open femoral exposure, elective percutaneous endovascular AAA repair (ePEVAR) is associated with decreased perioperative morbidity and access site complications. We hypothesized that PEVAR for ruptured AAA (rPEVAR) may also improve perioperative morbidity compared to open femoral exposure (rEVAR). There are currently no reports that evaluate the utility and outcomes of rPEVAR.Materials and methodsFrom 2015 to 2021, all patients who underwent an endovascular repair of a ruptured AAA at a single institution were included in the study and grouped into rPEVAR and rEVAR. Demographics, procedural details (successful preclose technique, conversion to femoral cutdown), postoperative variables (blood transfusion, ICU and hospital length of stay) and short-term outcomes (30-day major adverse events (30-day MAE) and 30-day femoral access-site complications (30-day FAAC)) were collected and compared with 50 historical ePEVAR patients from the PEVAR Trial. Statistical significance was determined using χ 2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables.Results35 patients were identified (21 rPEVAR; 14 rEVAR), 86% were male with a mean age of 72 ± 9 years. All patients underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair with 100% technical success. Seventeen patients (49%) presented with evidence of hemorrhagic shock and 22 patients (63%) had blood transfusion. 30-day MAE occurred in 12 patients (34%) (7 rPEVAR; 5 rEVAR). There was no difference in demographic, perioperative outcomes and 30-day MAE rate between rPEVAR and rEVAR patients. Compared to ePEVAR patient (from PEVAR trial), rPEVAR patients had higher rate of 30-day MAE (34% vs. 6%; p < 0.006) but no difference in 30-day FAAC (19% vs. 12%; p = 0.54). The success rate of the preclose technique was higher in ePEVAR compared to rPEVAR (96% vs. 76%; p = 0.02), but the rate of conversion to femoral cutdown was similar between the two groups (10% vs. 4%; p = 0.57).ConclusionEmergent rPEVAR appears to have similar outcomes when compared to rEVAR. Although patients undergoing rPEVAR have higher 30-day major adverse events rate compared to ePEVAR, the method of percutaneous femoral cannulation does not appear to increase the overall procedural or 30-day femoral artery access-site complications.

Dataset Information

Prospective evaluation of automated vascular analysis for ilio-femoral artery lesions before and after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Prospective evaluation of automated vascular analysis for ilio-femoral artery lesions before and after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets