Department of Vascular Surgery, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Hamar, Norway.
Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2021 Nov;55(8):798-803. doi: 10.1177/15385744211022654. Epub 2021 Jun 9.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the primary and assisted secondary percutaneous and non-invasive technical success of the ProGlide device on all-comers in a consecutive case series of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (P-EVAR).
A single-center consecutive case series where 434 elective and acute P-EVAR procedures were registered prospectively between May 2011 and July 2017. The mean age was 74.5 years ± SD 11.4 years. 82.3% of the patients were male. All patients were pre-planned from CT angiography. Percutaneous access punctures, performed in local anesthesia in the common femoral artery, with a final introducer size between 12-22 Fr OD were included and stratified in 2 groups, 12-16 Fr and 17-22 Fr.
By screening 868 access groins 22 groins were excluded. Of the remaining 846 groins, intended to be treated with ProGlide, 9 groins were excluded peri-procedurally and treated with the Fascia Suture Technique or surgical cutdown. The remaining 837 groins had access closure with ProGlide, with a mean value of 2.15 devices per groin with a slight significant difference between the 2 stratification groups. Primary ProGlide technical success was achieved in 68.1% of the groins. Secondary percutaneous or non-invasive technical success was achieved in 96.9%. Here there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 stratification groups. Thirty-one (3.7%) groin complications were registered during 30-day follow-up and 17 required additional treatment. Total mortality was 2.8%. None of these deaths were related to the access site.
ProGlide by itself has a significant failure rate in the closure of large-bore access holes on an unselected cohort of patients eligible for P-EVAR. However, together with adjunct percutaneous or non-invasive methods a success rate of 97% can be achieved. The access complication rate was lower than 4% at 30-day follow-up.
本研究旨在评估 ProGlide 装置在所有入组患者中行经皮血管内主动脉瘤修复术(P-EVAR)时的主要和辅助二级经皮和非侵入性技术成功率。
这是一项单中心连续病例系列研究,2011 年 5 月至 2017 年 7 月期间前瞻性登记了 434 例择期和急性 P-EVAR 手术。平均年龄为 74.5 岁±11.4 岁。82.3%的患者为男性。所有患者均行 CT 血管造影预计划。本研究纳入并分层了经皮股动脉局部麻醉下穿刺的股动脉穿刺,最终引入器大小为 12-22 Fr OD,穿刺点为 12-16 Fr 和 17-22 Fr 两组。
经筛选 868 个股动脉穿刺点,排除 22 个股动脉穿刺点。在其余 846 个拟用 ProGlide 治疗的股动脉穿刺点中,有 9 个股动脉穿刺点在围手术期被排除,采用筋膜缝合技术或外科切开术进行治疗。其余 837 个股动脉穿刺点使用 ProGlide 进行股动脉穿刺点闭合,每个股动脉穿刺点平均使用 2.15 个装置,两组间有轻微显著差异。主要 ProGlide 技术成功率为 68.1%。次要经皮或非侵入性技术成功率为 96.9%。两组间无统计学差异。31 例(3.7%)股动脉穿刺点并发症在 30 天随访中发现,其中 17 例需要进一步治疗。总死亡率为 2.8%。这些死亡病例均与穿刺点无关。
在未经选择的适合行 P-EVAR 的患者队列中,ProGlide 本身在闭合大口径股动脉穿刺点方面失败率较高。然而,联合经皮或非侵入性方法,成功率可达 97%。30 天随访时股动脉穿刺点并发症发生率低于 4%。