Randomized multicenter trial on percutaneous versus open access in endovascular aneurysm repair (PiERO).

BACKGROUND: In endovascular valve and aortic repair, vascular access through a percutaneous approach has become the competing technique to an open surgical approach. The effect on postoperative complications and surgical site infections (SSIs) has been investigated, but randomized evidence is lacking. The objective was to investigate whether percutaneous access of the common femoral artery (CFA) with a percutaneous closure device would decrease the number of SSIs compared with open surgical access of the CFA in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm suitable for EVAR were randomized to open or percutaneous access of the main device (MD) through the CFA. Through the contralateral side, access was obtained with the other technique than the one for which the MD was randomized. The primary outcome was number of SSIs. Secondary outcomes were wound complications, visual analog scale for pain scores, and standardized wound assessment scores during follow-up. Preoperative screening culture and groin biopsy specimens were obtained from all patients. RESULTS: Both groups contained 137 groins. SSI rate was 1.5% in the open group vs 0% in the percutaneous group. For MDs only, SSI rate was 3.1% (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-347; P = .34). Wound complications were comparable in both groups. Neither nasal nor groin Staphylococcus aureus carriage had a significant effect on SSIs, Southampton Wound Assessment score, or visual analog scale score. Adjusted pain score was 0.69 lower, in favor of percutaneous access. Wound assessment was better after 2 weeks (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-12.44; P = .046), also in favor of percutaneous access. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous access of the CFA does not reduce the number of SSIs. It does, however, reduce pain and improve wound healing with less inflammation 1 day and 2 weeks after EVAR, respectively

The use of endografts to create an endoluminal femoropopliteal bypass after failed above-knee femoropopliteal open bypass surgery.

Item does not contain fulltextRedo femoropopliteal bypass surgery is associated with increased morbidity and related to a poorer outcome than primary procedures. Endografts might provide an alternative, avoiding dissection of a previously operated groin. Patients treated with a polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents for superficial femoral artery occlusive disease between February 2009 and September 2011 were prospectively gathered. Demographics, clinical status, procedural aspects, and follow-up were retrieved. Seventy-four patients were included of which 5 (7%) were treated before with a femoropopliteal bypass. Indication for intervention was Rutherford category 3 in all patients and the median ankle-brachial index (ABI) was 0.68. Technical success was achieved in all cases. The postoperative course was uneventful in all and the ABI increased to 0.95. After a follow-up period of 18 months, 4 of 5 endografts remained patent. The use of endografts after failed femoropopliteal bypass surgery is feasible and safe and could be used to avoid or minimize a difficult and hazardous dissection of a previously operated area.1 mei 201

Solitary iliac branch endoprosthesis placement for iliac artery aneurysms

Background: Isolated iliac artery aneurysms (IAAs), accounting for 2% to 7% of all abdominal aneurysms, are often treated with the use of iliac branched endografts. Although outside the manufacturer’s instructions for use, iliac branched devices can be used solely, without the adjunctive placement of an endovascular aneurysm repair device, for the treatment of an isolated IAA. In the present study, we have described the outcomes of the use of the Gore iliac branched endoprosthesis (IBE; W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), without the support of an infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair device, for the exclusion of an isolated IAA. The present study was an international multicenter retrospective cohort analysis. Methods: All the patients who had undergone treatment with a solitary IBE for IAA exclusion from January 11, 2013 to December 31, 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was technical success. The secondary outcomes included mortality, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and reintervention. Results: A total of 18 European and American centers participated, with a total of 51 patients in whom 54 IAAs were excluded. The technical success rate was 94.1%, with an assisted technical success rate of 96.1%. No 30-day mortality occurred, with 98.1% patency of the internal and external iliac artery found at 24 months of follow-up. At 24 months of follow-up, 81.5% of the patients were free of complications and 90% were free of a secondary intervention. Conclusions: Treatment with a solitary IBE is a safe and, at midterm, an effective treatment strategy for selected patients with a solitary IAA. (J Vasc Surg 2022;75:1268-75.

Association of Hospital Volume with Perioperative Mortality of Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Objective: We evaluate nationwide perioperative outcomes of complex EVAR and assess the volume-outcome association of complex EVAR. Summary of Background Data: Endovascular treatment with fenestrated (FEVAR) or branched (BEVAR) endografts is progressively used for excluding complex aortic aneurysms (complex AAs). It is unclear if a volumeoutcome association exists in endovascular treatment of complex AAs (complex EVAR). Methods: All patients prospectively registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit who underwent complex EVAR (FEVAR or BEVAR) between January 2016 and January 2020 were included. The effect of annual hospital volume on perioperative mortality was examined using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Patients were stratified into quartiles based on annual hospital volume to determine hospital volume categories. Results: We included 694 patients (539 FEVAR patients, 155 BEVAR patients). Perioperative mortality following FEVAR was 4.5% and 5.2% following BEVAR. Postoperative complication rates were 30.1% and 48.7%, respectively. The first quartile hospitals performed <9 procedures/ yr; second, third, and fourth quartile hospitals performed 9-12, 13-22, and 23 procedures/yr. The highest volume hospitals treated significantly more complex patients. Perioperative mortality of complex EVAR was 9.1% in hospitals with a volume of <9, and 2.5% in hospitals with a volume of 13 (P = 0.008). After adjustment for confounders, an annual volume of 13 was associated with less perioperative mortality compared to hospitals with a volume of <9. Conclusions: Data from this nationwide mandatory quality registry shows a significant effect of hospital volume on perioperative mortality following complex EVAR, with high volume complex EVAR centers demonstrating lower mortality rates