Background: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with a Perclose ProGlide device compared with endovascular aortic repair with surgical cutdown of common femoral artery in patients at a general hospital. Methods: A retrospective clinical study was conducted using data on 10 patients with elective EVAR, 7 patients with percutaneous EVAR, and 9 patients with consecutive rupture abdominal aortic aneurysm treated with emergency EVAR from January 2010 to December 2014. Results: The median length of intensive care unit stay for elective EVAR, percutaneous EVAR, and emergency EVAR cases: 1.80±0.92 days, 1.67±1.21 days, and 10.00±13.27 days, respectively; hospital days: 11.10±4.28 days, 11.00±4.10 days, and 21.89±18.35 days, respectively. Seven patients have no calcification in common femoral artery, and the use of a Perclose ProGlide device was under the guidance of sonography for percutaneous EVAR. The operative times of elective EVAR, percutaneous EVAR, and emergency EVAR were 192.3 ± 52.0 minutes, 169.2 ± 67.5 minutes, and 227.1 ± 59.9 minutes, and blood loss volumes were 150.0 ± 77.5 ml, 95.0 ± 78.6 ml, and 422.2 ± 276.3 ml, respectively. Technical success rate of Perclose ProGlide was 100%. Conclusions: Selective percutaneous access of the femoral arteries for EVAR is safe and effective in the studied cases. The complications can be avoided with careful selection of patients based on preoperative imaging. Using Perclose ProGlide for select cases may reduce blood loss and operative time.
|State||Published - 1 Jan 2016|