Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Jun;45(6):1095-101. Epub 2007 Mar 29.

Total percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair ("Preclose" technique).

Author information

  • 1Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610-0286, USA. leewa@surgery.ufl.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Percutaneous access during endovascular aneurysm repair has been difficult owing to the large size of the delivery catheters. This study reports a single-center experience of totally percutaneous access during endovascular abdominal and thoracic aortic repairs using the Preclose Proglide device (Abbott Vascular, Redwood City, Calif).

METHODS:

Between December 2004 and August 2006, 262 endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs were performed. Percutaneous access was used for the introduction of 12F to 24F sheaths (4.4-mm to 8.6-mm outer diameter). The technique involved deployment of two Proglide devices before insertion of the sheath ("Preclose" technique) with the sutures left extracorporeally for closure after conclusion of the procedure. A prospectively maintained endovascular database and medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Rates of technical success, failure modes, and the overall duration of the endovascular repair compared with a similar cohort using open femoral exposures were examined.

RESULTS:

A total of 559 Proglide devices were used to close 279 femoral arteries, and 175 (63%) required the insertion of 18F to 24F sheaths. There were 16 failures, mainly due to obesity, device malfunction, severe calcific disease, and faulty arterial punctures, for a technical success rate of 94.3%. The success rates for 12F to 16F size sheaths were significantly higher than for the larger 18F to 24F sheaths (99.0% vs 91.4%, P<.01). For both endovascular abdominal (EVAR) and thoracic (TEVAR) aortic repairs, the Preclose technique resulted in shorter overall procedure times compared with a similar cohort in which open femoral exposures were used (EVAR, 115 vs 128 min, P<.001; TEVAR, 80 vs 112, P=.019). Despite this reduction of procedure time, the savings on the cost of operating room time was negated by the cost of the Proglide devices ($295 per device).

CONCLUSIONS:

Percutaneous access for endovascular aortic repair is safe and feasible using the Proglide device. Although the success rates are higher for smaller size sheaths, successful closures may be obtained for up to 24F sheaths. Percutaneous access may result in shorter overall procedure times and potentially lower operating room costs, but this appears to be offset by the cost of the closure devices.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk