Safety and effectiveness of single ProGlide vascular access in patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of single ProGlide use per bilateral access site for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed for all elective percutaneous EVARs from November 2015 to December 2017 at the QEII Health Sciences Centre (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada). Exposure of interest was number of ProGlides used per access site, dichotomized into bilateral single ProGlide closure vs nonsingle ProGlide closure on at least one femoral arteriotomy. Outcomes included Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. Groups were compared with Fisher exact test, analysis of variance, or Wilcoxon rank sum, as appropriate. Logistic regression was used to compare the effect of single ProGlide use on VARC-2 and BARC criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 131 cases were included, of which 116 had bilateral single ProGlide use for access closure. Baseline characteristics including comorbidities and smoking status were compared between groups. Groups were similar for all characteristics except smoking status, with an increased proportion of former smokers in the nonsingle ProGlide group. There were 119 (90.8%) patients who had single ProGlide use on the right femoral artery and 121 (92.4%) on the left; 16 (12.2%) patients had ProGlide deployment issues. Median maximal right and left femoral sheath diameters were 16F (interquartile range [IQR], 16F-18F) and 14F (IQR, 14F-16F), respectively. Median length of stay was 1 day (IQR, 1-1 day). VARC-2 criteria occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) patients, 6 of 116 (5.17%) with bilateral single ProGlides and 2 of 15 (13.3%) with nonsingle ProGlides. BARC criteria occurred in 6 of 131 (4.58%) patients, 5 of 116 (4.31%) with bilateral single ProGlides and 1 of 15 (6.67%) with nonsingle ProGlides. Single ProGlide use was not associated with a difference in VARC-2 (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.94) or BARC (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-6.79) criteria. No patients developed pseudoaneurysms or required repeated intervention for bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Single ProGlide use per vascular access site in patients undergoing EVAR is a safe and effective method for access closure with sheath diameters up to and including 16F.