两种缝线介导的闭合装置用于经股经皮血管内主动脉手术的结果。

Baban Assaf, Nikolaos Tsilimparis, Jan Stana, Alexia Amvrazi, Zsuzsanna Mihály, Barbara Rantner, Nikolaos Konstantinou
{"title":"两种缝线介导的闭合装置用于经股经皮血管内主动脉手术的结果。","authors":"Baban Assaf, Nikolaos Tsilimparis, Jan Stana, Alexia Amvrazi, Zsuzsanna Mihály, Barbara Rantner, Nikolaos Konstantinou","doi":"10.23736/S0021-9509.25.13341-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of percutaneous approach and compare two suture-mediated closure devices, the older generation Pergolide<sup>™</sup> and newer generation ProStyle<sup>™</sup> (Abbott Cardiovascular, Lake County, Chicago, IL, USA) in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, single-center, comparative study on consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures from January to November 2022 was undertaken. Arterial calcification was assessed using the peripheral artery calcification scoring system (PACSS). Closure device technical success without the need for open surgical conversion was defined as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were access vessel complications (bleeding, hematoma, vessel occlusion or high-grade stenosis and pseudoaneurysm) and the need for additional closure devices to achieve hemostasis. Logistic regression was used to identify confounders; results are presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between January and November 2022, 147 patients (mean age 71±10 years; 77.6% males) underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair. A total of 237 vessels were punctured, 63.3% were treated with ProGlide<sup>™</sup> and 36.7% with ProStyle<sup>™</sup>. Technical success of closure devices was 91.6% (ProGlide<sup>™</sup> 94% vs. ProStyle<sup>™</sup> 87.4%, P=0.091). Severe vessel calcification (PACSS 3-4) significantly reduced success rates (81% vs. 95.4%, P=0.001). Major complications occurred in 8.4% of cases, with higher rates in severely calcified vessels (P=0.006) and larger sheath sizes (P=.008). Multivariate analysis identified the number of closure devices used per vessel as the sole independent predictor of technical failure (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.36, P=0.001). Additional devices were required in 35.9% of cases, influenced by prior surgery and sheath size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the older generation ProGlide<sup>™</sup> and newer generation ProStyle<sup>™</sup> closure devices demonstrated high technical success rates with few access vessel complications. Severe calcification and large sheath sizes could potentially impact technical success negatively.</p>","PeriodicalId":101333,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","volume":"66 4","pages":"283-290"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of two suture-mediated closure devices for transfemoral percutaneous access endovascular aortic procedures.\",\"authors\":\"Baban Assaf, Nikolaos Tsilimparis, Jan Stana, Alexia Amvrazi, Zsuzsanna Mihály, Barbara Rantner, Nikolaos Konstantinou\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0021-9509.25.13341-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of percutaneous approach and compare two suture-mediated closure devices, the older generation Pergolide<sup>™</sup> and newer generation ProStyle<sup>™</sup> (Abbott Cardiovascular, Lake County, Chicago, IL, USA) in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, single-center, comparative study on consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures from January to November 2022 was undertaken. Arterial calcification was assessed using the peripheral artery calcification scoring system (PACSS). Closure device technical success without the need for open surgical conversion was defined as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were access vessel complications (bleeding, hematoma, vessel occlusion or high-grade stenosis and pseudoaneurysm) and the need for additional closure devices to achieve hemostasis. Logistic regression was used to identify confounders; results are presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between January and November 2022, 147 patients (mean age 71±10 years; 77.6% males) underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair. A total of 237 vessels were punctured, 63.3% were treated with ProGlide<sup>™</sup> and 36.7% with ProStyle<sup>™</sup>. Technical success of closure devices was 91.6% (ProGlide<sup>™</sup> 94% vs. ProStyle<sup>™</sup> 87.4%, P=0.091). Severe vessel calcification (PACSS 3-4) significantly reduced success rates (81% vs. 95.4%, P=0.001). Major complications occurred in 8.4% of cases, with higher rates in severely calcified vessels (P=0.006) and larger sheath sizes (P=.008). Multivariate analysis identified the number of closure devices used per vessel as the sole independent predictor of technical failure (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.36, P=0.001). Additional devices were required in 35.9% of cases, influenced by prior surgery and sheath size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the older generation ProGlide<sup>™</sup> and newer generation ProStyle<sup>™</sup> closure devices demonstrated high technical success rates with few access vessel complications. Severe calcification and large sheath sizes could potentially impact technical success negatively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery\",\"volume\":\"66 4\",\"pages\":\"283-290\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.25.13341-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.25.13341-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在探讨经皮入路的有效性,并比较两种缝合介导的关闭装置,老一代Pergolide™和新一代ProStyle™(Abbott Cardiovascular, Lake County, Chicago, IL, USA)在血管内主动脉修复患者中的效果。方法:对2022年1月至11月连续接受血管内主动脉手术的患者进行回顾性、单中心、比较研究。采用外周动脉钙化评分系统(PACSS)评估动脉钙化情况。闭合装置的技术成功而不需要开放手术转换被定义为主要终点。次要终点是通路血管并发症(出血、血肿、血管闭塞或高度狭窄和假性动脉瘤)和需要额外的闭合装置来止血。采用Logistic回归识别混杂因素;结果以比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(ci)表示。结果:2022年1 - 11月,147例患者(平均年龄71±10岁,男性77.6%)行经皮主动脉腔内修复术。共有237条血管被刺穿,63.3%的患者使用ProGlide™,36.7%的患者使用ProStyle™。闭合装置的技术成功率为91.6% (ProGlide™为94%,ProStyle™为87.4%,P=0.091)。严重的血管钙化(PACSS 3-4)显著降低了成功率(81%对95.4%,P=0.001)。主要并发症发生率为8.4%,其中血管严重钙化(P=0.006)和鞘大(P= 0.008)发生率较高。多变量分析表明,每条血管使用的闭合装置数量是技术失败的唯一独立预测因子(OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.36, P=0.001)。35.9%的病例需要额外的装置,受既往手术和鞘大小的影响。结论:老一代ProGlide™和新一代ProStyle™闭合装置均具有较高的技术成功率和较少的通路血管并发症。严重的钙化和大的鞘尺寸可能会对技术成功产生负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes of two suture-mediated closure devices for transfemoral percutaneous access endovascular aortic procedures.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of percutaneous approach and compare two suture-mediated closure devices, the older generation Pergolide and newer generation ProStyle (Abbott Cardiovascular, Lake County, Chicago, IL, USA) in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair.

Methods: A retrospective, single-center, comparative study on consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures from January to November 2022 was undertaken. Arterial calcification was assessed using the peripheral artery calcification scoring system (PACSS). Closure device technical success without the need for open surgical conversion was defined as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were access vessel complications (bleeding, hematoma, vessel occlusion or high-grade stenosis and pseudoaneurysm) and the need for additional closure devices to achieve hemostasis. Logistic regression was used to identify confounders; results are presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Between January and November 2022, 147 patients (mean age 71±10 years; 77.6% males) underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair. A total of 237 vessels were punctured, 63.3% were treated with ProGlide and 36.7% with ProStyle. Technical success of closure devices was 91.6% (ProGlide 94% vs. ProStyle 87.4%, P=0.091). Severe vessel calcification (PACSS 3-4) significantly reduced success rates (81% vs. 95.4%, P=0.001). Major complications occurred in 8.4% of cases, with higher rates in severely calcified vessels (P=0.006) and larger sheath sizes (P=.008). Multivariate analysis identified the number of closure devices used per vessel as the sole independent predictor of technical failure (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.36, P=0.001). Additional devices were required in 35.9% of cases, influenced by prior surgery and sheath size.

Conclusions: Both the older generation ProGlide and newer generation ProStyle closure devices demonstrated high technical success rates with few access vessel complications. Severe calcification and large sheath sizes could potentially impact technical success negatively.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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