Fascial suture technique versus open femoral access for thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Makaloski, Vladimir; Kölbel, Tilo; Fiorucci, Beatrice; Rohlffs, Fiona; Carpenter, Sebastian; Law, Yuk; Debus, Eike Sebastian; Tsilimparis, Nikolaos (2019). Fascial suture technique versus open femoral access for thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Journal of vascular surgery, 69(1), pp. 34-39. Elsevier 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.04.057

Text 1-s2.0-S0741521418310656-main.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (309kB) | Request a copy

BACKGROUND

Fascial suture technique (FST) has proved to be a safe and effective access closure technique after endovascular repair of the abdominal aorta. FST has not yet been investigated for closure of large-bore access after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The aim of this study was to compare FST with open femoral access in terms of access safety, hemostasis efficacy, and reintervention rate after TEVAR.

METHODS

A retrospective study including consecutive patients undergoing TEVAR with either FST or open femoral access between January 2010 and April 2016 was undertaken. Exclusion criteria included the use of closure devices. The composite primary end point was defined as any access-related complication (bleeding, femoral artery stenosis or occlusion, pseudoaneurysm, and wound infection) during 30 postoperative days. Preoperative and procedural variables were examined in a multiple logistic regression model as potential associated factors with access morbidity. All access vessels were postoperatively examined by clinical examination and computed tomography angiography before discharge as well as during the follow-up period. In case of suspected pseudoaneurysm, additional duplex ultrasound and computed tomography angiography confirmed the diagnosis.

RESULTS

From a total of 206 patients undergoing TEVAR, 109 (53%) had FST, whereas 93 (45%) had an open femoral access. Four patients were excluded: closure device was used in one; one had primary conversion after percutaneous puncture without FST; and in two, no data were available about the femoral access. The access complication rate was higher in FST (FST, 14 [13%]; open access, 3 [3%]; P = .01). Five (4.6%) patients needed early reintervention, two for bleeding and three for vessel occlusion. Seven (6.4%) pseudoaneurysms were detected during the 30-day period in the FST group; three had successful exclusion with thrombin injection, one was treated with manual compression, one was treated with open repair, and two were managed conservatively. Four (3.6%) patients in the FST group and three (3%) patients in the open access group had wound complications. After multiple logistic regression, FST was the only independent factor for any access complication (odds ratio, 5.176; 95% confidence interval, 1.402-19.114; P = .014). During follow-up, neither new pseudoaneurysm nor stenosis or occlusion was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

FST for large-hole closure had higher risk for any access complication compared with open access in TEVAR during the 30-day postoperative period. No other complications during 12 months of follow-up were observed in FST patients.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1 since deposited on 31 Jul 2018
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item