A seven-year single-center experience with large-bore percutaneous closure in endovascular aneurysm repair.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Vascular Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-24 DOI:10.1177/17085381261429288
Sven Ross Mathisen, Simen Tveten Berge
{"title":"A seven-year single-center experience with large-bore percutaneous closure in endovascular aneurysm repair.","authors":"Sven Ross Mathisen, Simen Tveten Berge","doi":"10.1177/17085381261429288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of percutaneous-endovascular aneurysm repair (p-EVAR) where large-bore access puncture holes were closed with a suture mediated closure device (SMCD) in all eligible patients.MethodsA single-center cohort of prospectively collected data in an Internal Quality Control Registry (IQCR). An \"All Comers\" cohort of 368 patients with 736 access groins was assessed. All abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients eligible for p-EVAR after CTA evaluation were included. Patients with stenosis and occlusions requiring vascular Interventions during EVAR were excluded. The groins were stratified into two groups: low-profile (12Fr - 16Fr) and high-profile introducers (18Fr - 20Fr). PerClose ProGlide (Abbott Cardiovascular, IL, USA) and later the newer version PerClose ProStyle (Abbott Cardiovascular, IL, USA) SMCD devices were assessed. Primary endpoints were: <i>Primary ProGlide technical success and Primary assisted percutaneous and non-invasive technical success. Secondary cutdown was an exclusions criterion.</i> Safety endpoints were Freedom from early peri-operative and late 30-day groin access complications requiring vascular surgical intervention.Results<i>Primary technical success</i> was achieved in 66.4 % (473/712) groins<i>. Primary assisted percutaneous and non-invasive technical success</i> was achieved in 32.2 % (229/712) groins. Continuous hemorrhage in 1.4 % (10/712) groins required a cutdown. 98.6 % (712/736) of the groins were successfully closed percutaneously. Median age was 76 years (IQR 71, 80). 78.8 % were male. 92 % (330/368) of the p-EVAR were elective. Median AAA diameter was 57mm (IQR 53, 63). Few groins required surgical intervention. No statically significant differences were found between the PerClose ProGlide and the ProStyle (p < .05).ConclusionsPercutaneous closure is efficient and safe. Low-profile introducers and EVAR components (12Fr - 16Fr) had slightly better primary technical and assisted technical success. 83.5 % of the patient groins were treated with low-profile introducers reflecting the drive in the vascular field toward lower-profile devices. No statistical difference between groups was observed for primary technical success and complication rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":23549,"journal":{"name":"Vascular","volume":" ","pages":"810-818"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381261429288","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of percutaneous-endovascular aneurysm repair (p-EVAR) where large-bore access puncture holes were closed with a suture mediated closure device (SMCD) in all eligible patients.MethodsA single-center cohort of prospectively collected data in an Internal Quality Control Registry (IQCR). An "All Comers" cohort of 368 patients with 736 access groins was assessed. All abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients eligible for p-EVAR after CTA evaluation were included. Patients with stenosis and occlusions requiring vascular Interventions during EVAR were excluded. The groins were stratified into two groups: low-profile (12Fr - 16Fr) and high-profile introducers (18Fr - 20Fr). PerClose ProGlide (Abbott Cardiovascular, IL, USA) and later the newer version PerClose ProStyle (Abbott Cardiovascular, IL, USA) SMCD devices were assessed. Primary endpoints were: Primary ProGlide technical success and Primary assisted percutaneous and non-invasive technical success. Secondary cutdown was an exclusions criterion. Safety endpoints were Freedom from early peri-operative and late 30-day groin access complications requiring vascular surgical intervention.ResultsPrimary technical success was achieved in 66.4 % (473/712) groins. Primary assisted percutaneous and non-invasive technical success was achieved in 32.2 % (229/712) groins. Continuous hemorrhage in 1.4 % (10/712) groins required a cutdown. 98.6 % (712/736) of the groins were successfully closed percutaneously. Median age was 76 years (IQR 71, 80). 78.8 % were male. 92 % (330/368) of the p-EVAR were elective. Median AAA diameter was 57mm (IQR 53, 63). Few groins required surgical intervention. No statically significant differences were found between the PerClose ProGlide and the ProStyle (p < .05).ConclusionsPercutaneous closure is efficient and safe. Low-profile introducers and EVAR components (12Fr - 16Fr) had slightly better primary technical and assisted technical success. 83.5 % of the patient groins were treated with low-profile introducers reflecting the drive in the vascular field toward lower-profile devices. No statistical difference between groups was observed for primary technical success and complication rate.

7年单中心大口径经皮闭合治疗血管内动脉瘤的经验。
目的评价经皮血管内动脉瘤修复术(p-EVAR)在所有符合条件的患者中应用缝线介导封闭装置(SMCD)封闭大口径通道穿刺孔的疗效和安全性。方法采用内部质量控制注册中心(IQCR)的前瞻性单中心队列研究。对368例736个通路腹股沟的“All - Comers”队列进行了评估。所有经CTA评估符合p-EVAR的腹主动脉瘤(AAA)患者均被纳入。排除在EVAR期间有狭窄和闭塞需要血管干预的患者。腹股沟被分为两组:低基因导入(12Fr - 16Fr)和高基因导入(18Fr - 20Fr)。评估了PerClose ProGlide (Abbott Cardiovascular, IL, USA)和更新版本的PerClose ProStyle (Abbott Cardiovascular, IL, USA) SMCD装置。主要终点是:原发性ProGlide技术成功和原发性辅助经皮和非侵入性技术成功。二次削减是一个排除标准。安全性终点为无围手术期早期和晚期30天腹股沟通路并发症,需要血管手术干预。结果66.4%(473/712)腹股沟手术成功。32.2%(229/712)的腹股沟获得了经皮无创辅助技术的初步成功。1.4%(10/712)腹股沟持续出血需要切开。98.6%(712/736)的腹股沟经皮闭合成功。中位年龄76岁(IQR 71,80)。78.8%为男性。92%(330/368)的p-EVAR是选择性的。中位AAA直径为57mm (IQR 53,63)。很少腹股沟需要手术干预。PerClose ProGlide与ProStyle之间无统计学差异(p < 0.05)。结论经皮缝合术安全有效。低调的引入物和EVAR组分(12Fr - 16Fr)的初级技术和辅助技术成功率略高。83.5%的患者腹股沟采用了低姿态的引入器,这反映了血管场对低姿态装置的驱动。两组间初级技术成功率和并发症发生率无统计学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Vascular
Vascular 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
196
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Vascular provides readers with new and unusual up-to-date articles and case reports focusing on vascular and endovascular topics. It is a highly international forum for the discussion and debate of all aspects of this distinct surgical specialty. It also features opinion pieces, literature reviews and controversial issues presented from various points of view.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书