Single-Center Experience on the Elective Hybrid Combination of Single Perclose + Angio-Seal VIP 8F Compared With Standard Dual Perclose During Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: This single-center study aimed to assess patients who underwent intentional percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (pEVAR) with Hybrid Technique combining a single Perclose (Abbott, Abbott Park, Illinois) Suture-Mediated Closure Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) and compare outcomes with the standard Dual Perclose technique. Materials and Methods: Consecutive elective pEVAR patients treated from November 2022 to November 2023, with healthy femoral accesses and introducer sheaths ≤20 French (F) outer diameter, were included. Coin-toss randomization determined whether a combination of single Perclose Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F (Hybrid Technique) or the standard double Perclose Devices (Dual Perclose) was used. In Hybrid Technique, a single Perclose device was positioned at 12 o'clock; a single Angio-Seal VIP 8F was placed after sheaths removal. Dual Perclose followed standard procedure. Primary endpoints included immediate hemostasis, sheath diameter differences, access conversion rate, technical success, and cost analysis. RESULTS: The study involved 60 pEVAR patients (median age=78, interquartile range [IQR]=72-85 years) within the inclusion criteria. In 14 (24%) cases, only 1 femoral access was studied. There were 106 pEVAR accesses, with 58 (54.7%) in the Hybrid Technique group and 48 (45.3%) in the Dual Perclose group. Both groups exhibited homogeneity in pre-operative characteristics and sheath diameter (Hybrid Technique-16F vs Dual Perclose-18F; p=0.202). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the Hybrid Technique group vs 87.5% for the Dual Perclose group (p=0.006). Surgical access conversion was unnecessary. Technical success was 100%, with all 6 femoral bleeding cases after Dual Perclose resolved endovascularly, using additional devices. Cost analysis showed a median cost of 330 euros (IQR=0) for the Hybrid Technique group vs 384 euros (IQR=360-456) for the Dual Perclose group (p<0.001). Thirty-day mortality was 3%, in 2 fragile patients, without access-related complications. Multivariate analysis identified Dual Perclose access (odds ratio [OR]=35.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]=18.3-36.8; p<0.001) and obesity (OR=19.7; 95% CI=1.4-23.9.5; p<0.001) as independent risk factors for immediate hemostasis failure. Median follow-up was 134 days (IQR=41-227), with 1 Hybrid Technique case (2%) successfully treated with thrombin injection for a small femoral pseudoaneurysm after 62 days. CONCLUSIONS: The elective Hybrid Technique with combination of single Perclose Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F during pEVAR in selected patients appears to be non-inferior to the standard Dual Perclose procedure. It demonstrates a positive trend in reducing immediate hemostasis failure and costs. Both procedures achieved technical success and avoiding surgical access conversions. CLINICAL IMPACT: This study introduces a novel elective hybrid technique combining a single Perclose device with a single Angio-Seal VIP 8Fr for percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic interventions. Results for hybrid technique showed 100% technical success and efficient immediate hemostasis, while costing less than standard dual Perclose procedure. Both procedures did not require surgical conversions. Despite being a single-center study, it demonstrates potential benefits of the intentional application of this hybrid technique towards minimally invasiveness. Obesity and dual Perclose technique were identified as independent risk factors for hemostasis failure, reaffirming the hybrid technique procedure's efficacy as well as and non-inferiority to standard procedure.

Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Access Via Large-Bore Sheaths (22-26F Diameter) in Endovascular Therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the closure success rate's outcomes with suture-mediated vascular closure device Perclose ProGlide in patients undergoing aortic or iliac artery endovascular repair using large delivery systems (>21F). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We screened all the patient records in aortic databases at 2 centers who had undergone vascular interventions via ProGlide for percutaneous femoral access >21F between 2016 and 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the delivery system size: large (L) (22F-23F) and extra-large (XL) (24F-26F). Demographics, anatomical details, and outcome of percutaneous access were evaluated. RESULTS: Included were 239 patients: 121 in the L group and 118 the XL group. Intraprocedural conversion to open surgery because of bleeding was necessary in 2% L and 6% XL patients (p=0.253). Severe femoral artery calcification was the sole risk factor for converting to open surgery (odds ratio=23.44, 95% confidence interval=1.49-368.17, p=0.025). In all, 2% of L and 3% of XL (p=0.631) did require late percutaneous intervention due to stenosis (all treated with balloon angioplasty). Overall, 3% developed pseudoaneurysm treated conservatively in all except one patient requiring surgical repair. Hematoma and groin infection were observed in 9% and 1%, respectively; none required surgical therapy. CONCLUSION: A femoral arterial defect after accessing the artery via a large bore sheath (22F-26F) can be closed successfully with ProGlide in more than 90% of patients. Severe femoral artery calcification is a risk factor for conversion to open surgery caused by bleeding. CLINICAL IMPACT: This study adds evidence on efficacy of accessing the artery via a large bore sheath (22-26F) secured by ProGlide. In more than 200 patients conversion to open surgery was necessary in only 4%. Severe femoral artery calcification was the sole risk factor for converting to open surgery. Our findings encourage physicians to choose the percutaneous access even in patients requiring the use of large bore sheath.

Safety of Percutaneous Femoral Access for Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Through Previously Surgically Exposed or Repaired Femoral Arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous femoral artery access is being increasingly used in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). The technique can be challenging in patients with previously surgically exposed or repaired femoral arteries because of excessive scar tissue. However, a successful percutaneous approach may cause less morbidity than a "re-do" open femoral approach. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of prior open surgical femoral exposure on technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous approach. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who underwent percutaneous EVAR between 2010 and 2020 at 2 major aortic centers. Patients were divided into 2 groups (with or without prior open surgical femoral access) for analysis of clinical outcomes. Only punctures with sheaths ≥12Fr were included for analysis. The access and (pre)closure techniques were similar in both institutions. Primary end points were intraoperative technical success, access-related revision, and access complications. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify determinants of conversion to open approach and femoral access complications in intact and re-do groins. RESULTS: A total of 632 patients underwent percutaneous (complex) EVAR: 98 had prior open surgical femoral access and 534 patients underwent de novo femoral percutaneous access. A total of 1099 femoral artery punctures were performed: 149 in re-do and 950 in intact groins. The extent of endovascular repair included 159 infrarenal, 82 thoracic, 368 fenestrated/branched, and 23 iliac branch devices. No significant differences were seen in technical success (re-do 93.3% vs intact 95.3%, p=0.311), access-related surgical revision (0.7% vs 0.6%, p=0.950), and access complications (2.7% vs 4.0%, p=0.443). For the whole group, significant predictors for access complications in multivariate analyses were main access site (odds ratio [OR] 2.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07%-5.35%; p=0.033) and increase of the procedure time per hour (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.34%-2.04%; p<0.001), while increase in sheath-vessel ratio had a protective effect (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.127%-0.85%; p=0.021). Surgical conversion was predicted by main access site (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.28%-4.19%; p=0.007) and calcification of 50% to 75% of the circumference of the access vessel (OR 3.29; 95% CI 1.38%-7.86%; p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Within our population prior open surgical femoral artery exposure or repair had no negative impact on the technical success and clinical outcomes of percutaneous (complex) endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Ultrasound-Guided PCNL - Why Are We Still Performing Exclusively Fluoroscopic Access?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While urologists are traditionally taught to perform percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) utilizing exclusively fluoroscopy, ultrasound has emerged as a safe alternative. This article showcases the major reasons why ultrasound-guided access should be considered the first-line approach for performing access for PCNL. RECENT FINDINGS: There continues to be a need to further reduce radiation exposure in the management of kidney stone patients. This review showcases how performing ultrasound-guided PCNL has been associated with a shorter learning curve, increased patient safety, and the ability to perform x-ray free PCNL. Ultrasound-guided PCNL is not only an achievable skill for urologists to learn but provides multiple advantages over traditional fluoroscopic access. As every effort should be given to help reduce radiation exposure for kidney stone patients as well as performing surgeons and operating theater personnel, endourologists should strive to add this technique to their armamentarium.

Suture-mediated closure devices for percutaneous endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair.

Purpose: Endovascular procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair or transcatheter aortic valve implantation have become very common because of reduced patient traumatisation and the ability to use shorter or local anaesthesia. In these procedures large-bore sheath devices are used. Access with percutaneous closure is an alternative method to surgical cutdown in groins. The aim of the study was to assess the correlation between sheath size and unsuccessful haemostasis. In addition, the effectiveness of haemostasis after a percutaneous procedure and the number and type of complications were evaluated. Material and methods: There were 202 patients included in the study. Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm were qualified to percutaneous aortic stentgraft implantation with Perclose Proglide preclosure technique. Results: There were 384 access sites performed with 12F to 22F sheaths during aortic stentgraft implantation with Perclose Proglide (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) preclosure technique. High effectiveness of haemostasis (98%), low percentage of short- and mid-term complications (2.6%), and infinitesimal number of surgical conversions (n = 5) were stated in the study. There was no correlation between diameter of used introducer sheath and lack of haemostasis observed (Fisher-Freeman-Halton test; p = 0.122). No relationship between diameter of introducer sheath and number of closure devices was observed (c2 = 2.436; df = 5; p = 0.786). Conclusions: Large-bore device percutaneous procedures with closure devices are effective and safe. High effectiveness of haemostasis (98%) was observed in the study group, with a low percentage of complications (2.6%). There was no correlation between size of the vascular access and the lack of haemostasis found in the study.

Preoperative Risk Factors for Access Site Failure in Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Treatment of TASC C and D Aorto-Iliac Occlusive Disease.

BACKGROUND: At our institution, we adopted routinely ultrasound guided approach for all percutaneous procedures. The objective of this study was to describe the predictors of access site failures (ASFs) in patients undergoing percutaneous aorto iliac revascularization and to also evaluate whether other factors such as time period or different vascular devices may influence outcomes in terms of ASFs. METHODS: We reviewed all consecutive percutaneous revascularizations performed for aortoiliac occlusion or stenosis at our institution from 2011 to 2020. All procedure were performed using an ultrasound (US) guided common femoral access. The primary outcome was ASFs, defined as bleeding or groin hematomas that required transfusions; pseduoaneurysm (diagnosed by US); retroperitoneal hematoma; artery laceration or ruptured (diagnosed intraoperatively); and thrombosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of ASFs. RESULTS: A total of 502 femoral arteries were accessed under DUS guidance with no failure in sheath placement. Technical success was achieved in 498 of 502 procedures (99.2%). ASFs occurred in 21 patients (7%); but year of procedure appear to be associated with an excess of ASFs as rates were different between the first and second period of the study (10.9% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.04). Results of multivariable logistic regression model indicated that independent predictors of ASFs were common femoral artery (CFA) calcification peripheral artery calcium scoring system (PACCS) grade (odds ratio [OR], 8.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5-13.7), and CFA diameter (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.85). Compared to patients with successful percutaneous access, ASFs resulted in longer post-op lengths of stay (P = < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous US guided access can be safely performed in patients undergoing endovascular procedures for aorto iliac revascularization with TASC C and D lesions. CFA calcification PACCS grade greater than 3 and smaller femoral vessel diameter are independent risk factors for ASFs.

Is percutaneous access superior to cutdown access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair? A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to investigate whether percutaneous access (pEVAR) is superior to cutdown access (cEVAR) in terms of safety and efficacy during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 1999 to December 2020 for studies reporting on the comparison between percutaneous and cutdown techniques for endovascular repair of AAAs. Outcomes evaluated were technical success rates, access site-related complications and operative time, and hospital stay. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies with a total of 1683 patients comprising 2715 groin accesses were eligible for the meta-analysis. pEVAR was associated with a lower risk of overall complications (odds ratio (OR) = 0.63; p = .005) and seroma/lymphorrhea (OR, 0.18; p = .0001) and shortened operation time (MD = -39.04; p = .002) and the length of hospital stay (MD = -0.75; p < .00001) compared with cEVAR. The technical success rate for pEVAR was 95.1% (694/729), with an overall OR of 0.27 (95% CI 0.14-0.55, p = .0003) comparing pEVAR with cEVAR. Furthermore, pEVAR did not increase the risk of site infection, femoral artery thrombosis, postoperative hematoma, nerve injury, dissection, and bleeding. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair is a safe and effective method for the treatment of AAA. It reduces the risk of overall complications and shortens the operation time and hospital stay. The technical success rate of pEVAR is lower than that of cEVAR, which may be linked to the selection of patients, operator experience, and the use of ultrasound. Large definitive trials are required to draw robust conclusions.

Open Versus Ultrasound Guided Tunneled Central Venous Access in children: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare open insertion to ultrasound guided percutaneous insertion of central access catheters performed in a tertiary pediatric hospital in terms of its safety and complication rates. METHODS: This was an ethics approved prospective randomized trial of children under 16 y of age. Procedure was performed by surgeons with varying experience with percutaneous and open insertion. Primary outcome studied was complications-immediate and late. Secondary outcomes were time taken to complete procedure, conversion rates, duration of line use. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients were analyzed. Sixty-four were male. Right internal jugular vein was accessed in 97. Eighty-one lines were double lumen, 23 implantable access devices, and the rest were single lumen catheters. More than one needle puncture was needed in 22% of the cases but there were no conversions in the ultrasound group. Twelve patients needed more than one insertion to achieve optimal position of the tip. Eleven patients had immediate and late complications. Percutaneous lines lasted 45 d longer though this was not statistically significant. Operating time was 20.6% shorter with percutaneous access. Post-removal measurement of vein size by ultrasound demonstrated significant decrease in size in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guided percutaneous insertion was safe. The study also demonstrated a decrease in operating times, preservation of vein size, and no increase in complication rates in the US group when performed by operators of varying expertise.

Pivotal Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of the MANTA Vascular Closure Device During Percutaneous EVAR and TEVAR Procedures.

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA percutaneous vascular closure device in patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: The SAFE MANTA Study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02908880) was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter trial in patients undergoing endovascular interventions using large-bore sheaths (transcatheter aortic valve replacement, PEVAR, or TEVAR) at 20 sites in North America. Patient selection intended to test the MANTA device in populations without morbid obesity, severe calcification, or a severely scarred femoral access area. Of the 263 patients enrolled in the primary analysis cohort, 53 (20.2%) patients (mean age 74.9±8.9 years; 41 men) underwent PEVAR (n=51) or TEVAR (n=2) procedures and form the cohort for this subgroup analysis. Per protocol a single MANTA device was deployed in all PEVAR/TEVAR cases. Results: The mean time to hemostasis in the PEVAR/TEVAR cohort was 35±91 seconds, with a median time of 19 seconds vs 24 seconds in the overall SAFE MANTA population. The MANTA device met the definition for technical success in 52 (98%) of 53 PEVAR/TEVAR cases compared with 97.7% in the overall SAFE MANTA population. One (1.9%) major complication (access-site stenosis) occurred in this subgroup compared to 14 (5.3%) events in the SAFE population. In the PEVAR/TEVAR group, 1 pseudoaneurysm was noted prior to discharge, another at 30-day follow-up, and one at 60 days. One (1.9%) of the 3 minor pseudoaneurysms was treated with ultrasound-guided compression and the other 2 required no treatment. Conclusion: The MANTA device demonstrated a short time to hemostasis and low complication rates compared with published literature results of other percutaneous closure devices. Time to hemostasis and complication rates were comparable between the PEVAR/TEVAR patients and the full SAFE MANTA study cohort. The MANTA device provides reliable closure with a single percutaneous device for PEVAR/TEVAR procedures.

Preoperative risk score for access site failure in ultrasound-guided percutaneous aortic procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The factors associated with access site failure after ultrasound-guided percutaneous access for aortic endograft procedures remain poorly characterized. We developed a prediction model to risk stratify patients for access site failure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective institutional review of consecutive patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR), or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) from 2014 to 2016. We excluded patients undergoing direct aortic access through sternotomy and patients treated with physician-modified endografts, given reporting restrictions. Our primary outcome was groin access site failure, which included bleeding and thrombosis. An 8-point risk model was created for access site failure using multivariable fractional polynomials and internally validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: We identified 469 femoral arteries from 247 patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair procedures (EVAR, 75%; FEVAR, 8.0%; TEVAR, 17%). Surgeons performed percutaneous access in 97.2% of the femoral arteries, with 99.6% ultrasound use. Twenty-seven (5.9%) access site failures occurred (17 bleeding, 10 thrombosis), all treated with groin cutdown, for a successful percutaneous femoral artery access rate of 94%. Of the 215 patients with attempted bilateral percutaneous access, 90% had successful bilateral access. However, FEVAR had lower rates of successful bilateral access (FEVAR, 78%; EVAR, 91%; TEVAR, 94%; P = .03). Factors independently associated with percutaneous access site failure were femoral artery outer wall diameter (per millimeter increase: odds ratio [OR], 0.003 [0.0002-0.1]; P < .001), femoral artery stenosis >50% (OR, 22.3 [2.7-183.2]; P < .01), and urgent/emergent intervention (OR, 3.6 [1.2-11.0]; P = .03). A risk prediction model based on these criteria produced a C statistic of 0.89, a Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit of 0.99, and a Brier score of 0.04. Excluding treatment for ruptured aneurysms, cutdown for access failure and planned initial groin cutdown resulted in longer postoperative lengths of stay and higher rates of access-related readmission, return to operating room, groin infection, and myocardial infarction compared with successful percutaneous access. There was no difference in major adverse events between planned initial groin cutdown and cutdown after failure; however, the small number of patients in these two comparison groups limits the statistical power to detect a difference. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous ultrasound-guided access can be safely performed in almost all patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures, but access site failures do occur. This risk score can help users select patients with high likelihood of success, identify patients who need close scrutiny with postclosure femoral duplex ultrasound, and provide patient guidance about risk of unplanned groin cutdown.

A Stopped Pilot Study of the ProGlide Closure Device After Transbrachial Endovascular Interventions.

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the suture-mediated ProGlide device in closure of the brachial artery after endovascular interventions. Materials and Methods: From 2016 to 2017, a pilot study was performed using the ProGlide to achieve hemostasis after percutaneous access of distal brachial arteries >4 mm in diameter. In an interim analysis, the results were compared to a matched control group taken from a 60-patient historical cohort who underwent brachial artery access and manual compression to achieve hemostasis between 2014 and 2017. The primary outcome was access-related reintervention and the secondary outcome was the incidence of access-site complications. Results: Seven patients (mean age 67.9 years; 6 men) were enrolled in the study before it was stopped in 2017. Four patients experienced 6 access-site complications (neuropathy, hematoma, occlusion, and pseudoaneurysm). These resulted in 3 access-related reinterventions: surgical evacuation of a hematoma, thrombectomy of the occluded brachial artery, and surgical repair of the pseudoaneurysm. In the interim comparison to the 19 matched patients (mean age 61.9 years; 6 men), the ProGlide group had proportionally more patients experiencing access-related complications (57% vs 16% for manual compression, p=0.035) and resultant reinterventions (43% vs 11%, p=0.064). Based on this data the trial was stopped. Conclusion: Considering this experience, it is not advisable to use the ProGlide in transbrachial endovascular interventions due to the high incidence of complications and access-related reinterventions.

Perioperative Outcomes From the Prospective Multicenter Least Invasive Fast-Track EVAR (LIFE) Registry.

PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility, perioperative resource utilization, and safety of a fast-track endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) protocol in well-selected patients. METHODS: Between October 2014 and May 2016, the LIFE (Least Invasive Fast-track EVAR) registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02224794) enrolled 250 patients (mean age 73±8 years; 208 men) in a fast-track EVAR protocol comprised of bilateral percutaneous access using the 14-F Ovation stent-graft, no general anesthesia, no intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and next-day discharge. The primary endpoint was major adverse events (MAE) through 30 days. The target performance goal for the MAE endpoint was 10.4%. RESULTS: Vascular access, stent-graft delivery, and stent-graft deployment success were 100%. A total of 216 (86%) patients completed all elements of the fast-track EVAR protocol. Completion of individual elements was 98% for general anesthesia avoidance, 97% for bilateral percutaneous access, 96% for ICU avoidance, and 92% for next-day discharge. Perioperative outcomes included mean procedure time of 88 minutes, median blood loss of 50 mL, early oral nutrition (median 6 hours), early mobilization (median 8 hours), and short hospitalization (median 26 hours). Fast-track EVAR completers had shorter procedure time (p<0.001), less blood loss (p=0.04), faster return to oral nutrition (p<0.001) and ambulation (p<0.01), and shorter hospital stay (p<0.001). With 241 (96%) of the 250 patients returning for the 30-day follow-up, the MAE incidence was 0.4% (90% CI 0.1% to 1.8%), significantly less than the 10.4% performance goal (p<0.001). No aneurysm rupture, conversion to surgery, or aneurysm-related secondary procedure was reported. There were no type III endoleaks and 1 (0.4%) type I endoleak. Iliac limb occlusion was identified in 2 (0.8%) patients. The 30-day hospital readmission rate was 1.6% overall. CONCLUSION: A fast-track EVAR protocol was feasible in well-selected patients and resulted in efficient perioperative resource utilization with excellent safety and effectiveness.

Percutaneous axillary access for large-bore arteriotomy: A step-by-step guide.

The last decade has witnessed a tremendous growth in the type and complexity of transcatheter cardiovascular interventions that require large-bore access. While the common femoral artery has become the main route for these interventions, sizable cohorts of patients are unsuitable for transfemoral access due to vascular disease or small vessel caliber. Percutaneous axillary access has emerged as a feasible alternative in these patients. We provide a step-by-step guide for transaxillary large-bore access and closure for patients requiring transcatheter interventions.

[Cryoablation under local anesthesia of renal tumors]. / Cryothérapie sous anesthésie locale des tumeurs rénales.

Cryoablation under local anesthesia of renal tumors. The incidence of small renal tumors is increasing. These small tumors measuring less than 4 cm are typically slow-growing. The development of non-invasive percutaneous ablative techniques represents an alternative to active surveillance or surgery in at risk patients who are candidates to nephron sparing techniques. The intrinsic anesthetic properties of cryoablation make the procedure feasible under local anesthesia.

Cryothérapie sous anesthésie locale des tumeurs rénales. L'incidence du cancer du rein localisé et de petite taille est en constante augmentation. Ces tumeurs de moins de 4 cm sont classiquement peu agressives et leur potentiel de croissance est faible. Le développement des techniques ablatives percutanées comme la cryoablation a permis de proposer une alternative à la surveillance et à la chirurgie chez les patients fragiles nécessitant une préservation du capital néphronique. Les propriétés anesthésiques intrinsèques de la cryothérapie rendent la procédure faisable sous anesthésie locale.

Safety and Efficacy of Totally Percutaneous Access Compared With Open Femoral Exposure for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous (PEVAR) vs open femoral access (OFA) techniques for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A systematic review of English-language articles (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) between January 1999 and August 2016 returned 11 studies including 1650 patients with 2500 groin accesses eligible for the meta-analysis. Data extracted from each study were synthesized to evaluate technical success rates, procedure time, and complications for the 2 access approaches. Data are presented as the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of individual studies was evaluated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: The mean technical success rate in the PEVAR group was 94.5% (785/831). The overall OR was 0.38 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.18, p=0.09), indicating no significant difference between the methods. The procedure time in PEVAR was shorter than OFA (mean difference -24.52, 95% CI -46.45 to -22.60, p<0.001). Overall, the total complication rate was 15.3% in the OFA group vs 7.8% in the PEVAR group (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.73, p<0.001). The meta-analysis identified significant differences between groups for all complications (p<0.001) and the following individual adverse events: wound infection (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81, p=0.02), pseudoaneurysm (OR 8.07, 95% CI 1.54 to 42.32, p=0.01), seroma (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55, p=0.008), and lymphocele or lymph leak (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92, p=0.04). CONCLUSION: PEVAR had a similar technical success rate, shorter procedure time, and lower complication rate compared with OFA. Thus, percutaneous access appears to be the preferential approach for EVAR. However, larger and randomized studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Editor's Choice - Arteriotomy Closure Devices in EVAR, TEVAR, and TAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac and vascular surgery benefit from percutaneous interventions. Arteriotomy closure devices (ACDs) enable minimally invasive access to the common femoral artery (CFA). The objective of this review was to assess the differences between ACDs and surgical cut down (SCD) of the CFA regarding the number of complications, duration of surgery (DOS), and hospital length of stay (HLOS). DESIGN: A systematic literature search with predefined search terms was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (2000-2016). All studies reporting on ACD and SCD for a puncture of the CFA of at least 12 French (Fr.) were assessed for eligibility. METHODS: Included were randomised controlled trials and cohort studies comparing both techniques. Patient characteristics, exclusion criteria, and conversion rates were evaluated. Complications, DOS, and HLOS were compared. MATERIALS: A total of 17 studies were included for meta-analysis, describing 7889 vascular access sites; four studies were randomised trials, two studies reported from a prospective database, and 11 studies reported retrospective cohorts. RESULTS: ACD was associated with fewer post-operative seromas (odds ratio [OR] 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.35), less wound dehiscence (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.78), and fewer surgical site infections (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23-0.63). Post-operative pseudoaneurysms were significantly more common in the ACD group (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.55-9.44). In five of 17 studies, DOS and HLOS were not reduced in the ACD group. When all studies reporting a mean DOS and/or HLOS were compared in a non-parametric analysis, neither was significantly different. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis favours ACD regarding the number of wound complications compared with SCD in endovascular aneurysm repair, thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair, and transcatheter aortic valve repair. Treatment duration (DOS and HLOS) was not reduced in ACD. The differences are of limited clinical significance and with this equivocal quality of evidence, the ACD may be considered safe for CFA access in suitable patients.

Ultrasound Guided Compression Versus Ultrasound Guided Thrombin Injection for the Treatment of Post-Catheterization Femoral Pseudoaneurysms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of ultrasound based techniques (ultrasound guided compression-(UGC) versus ultrasound guided thrombin injection (UGTI)) to treat iatrogenic post-catheterization femoral pseudoaneurysms. METHODS: The study design involved a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of comparative studies. The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and OpenGray databases were searched up to October 2015. Primary outcome measure was efficacy, while other outcomes examined were safety (complication rate), duration of the procedure, length of hospitalization, and cost of methods. The random effects model was used to calculate combined overall effect sizes of pooled data. Data are presented as the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Two randomized control trials and 11 observational studies were included in the analysis. Overall, 786 and 318 subjects underwent UGC and UGTI respectively. The latter modality resulted in a significantly higher success rate (97.4% vs. 69.3%, OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.03-0.11) while the complication rate for both techniques was very low (0.69% vs. 0.78%, OR 1.77, 95% CI 0.40-7.88). Data regarding procedural duration and length of hospitalization were very scarce, favoring UGTI (procedural time: MD 35.53 min, 9.11-63.95, length of hospitalization MD 1.99 days, -0.31-4.29). Scarcity of data did not allow proper cost analysis, but two studies suggested that UGTI may offer reduced treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Available evidence suggests that UGTI is superior in terms of efficacy and as safe as UGC and thus should be used as the primary modality for the treatment of post-catheterization femoral pseudoaneurysms.

Percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to undertake a comprehensive review of the literature and conduct an analysis of the outcomes of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair. METHODS: MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; CENTRAL; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists were searched to identify all studies providing comparative outcomes of the percutaneous technique for endovascular aneurysm repair. Success rate and access-related complications were defined as the primary outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed effect or random effects models. We conducted a network meta-analysis of different techniques for femoral access applying multivariate meta-analysis assuming consistency. FINDINGS: Three randomised controlled trials and 18 observational studies were identified. Percutaneous access was associated with a lower frequency of groin infection (p < 0.0001) and lymphocele (p = 0.007), and a shorter procedure time (p < 0.0001) and hospital length of stay (p = 0.03) compared with open surgical access. Moreover, percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair did not increase the risk of haematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and arterial thrombosis or dissection. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous access demonstrates advantages over conventional surgical exposure for endovascular aneurysm repair, as indicated by access-related complications and hospital length of stay. Further research is required to define its impact on resource utilization, cost-effectiveness and quality of life.

Percutaneous closure of large femoral artery access with Prostar XL in thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the technical success rate of Prostar XL for closure of large (≥20F) femoral vascular access sites in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures. METHODS: This was a single-center consecutive case series. All TEVAR procedures at Uppsala University Hospital 2006-2010 were registered prospectively. Reoperations and cases with open closure technique were excluded. Primary (early) technical failure was defined as closure failure requiring immediate (on-table) open surgical repair; late access-related complication occurred thereafter. The medical records, pre- and postoperative computed tomography images were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 164 TEVAR procedures were identified, of which 118 (71%) had a median 22F (range 20-26F) access site sealed with tandem Prostar XL. The indications for TEVAR were dissection (47%), aneurysm (42%), trauma (8%), and miscellaneous (3%). Median follow-up time was 10 months (range 1-62). Primary technical failure occurred in 10 of 118 (8%). These cases were converted to cut-downs and surgical repair (n = 7), femoral fascia suturing (n = 2), and external compression with the Femo-Stop device (n = 1). Hypertension was associated with primary failure (p = .005), and a trend was observed for high age (p = .078) and increased groin subcutaneous fat layer (p = .077). Late access-related complications included pseudo-aneurysms (n = 12), small hematomas (n = 7), superficial groin infections (n = 2), and deep venous thrombosis (n = 1). None of the late complications required surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The access closure technique with tandem Prostar XL for large access sites during TEVAR is safe, in experienced hands. Few technical failures and few late complications occur, and they are usually benign.

Feasibility of Percutaneous Pancreatic Stent Placement in Postoperative Pancreaticojejunostomy Stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of percutaneous pancreatic stent placement in postoperative pancreaticojejunostomy stenosis (PJS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included seven procedures in five patients (four males and one female; median age, 63 years) who underwent percutaneous pancreatic stent placement for postoperative PJS between January 2005 and December 2021. The patients were referred to interventional radiology because of unfavorable anatomy or bowel abnormalities. The pancreatic duct was accessed under ultrasound and/or computed tomography guidance. A stent was placed after balloon dilatation of the PJS. Moreover, plastic stents were placed for the first two procedures, whereas bare-metal stents were used for the remaining five procedures. Technical success was defined as the successful placement of stents for the PJS, meanwhile, clinical success was defined as the normalization of pancreatic enzymes without recurrence of pancreatitis. RESULTS: Pancreatic duct access and stent placement were successfully performed in all patients (technical success rate: 100%). All the procedures initially yielded clinical success. However, recurrence of pancreatitis was observed after two procedures that used plastic stents because of stent migration at 0.3 and 3 months after the procedure. In contrast, no instances of recurrent pancreatitis were noted after metal stent placement for a follow-up duration of 1-36 months. No serious procedure-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous pancreatic stent placement may be a viable option for patients with postoperative PJS in whom an endoscopic approach is not feasible. Metal stents may be considered over plastic stents for the management of PJS, considering the possible lower stent migration and infeasibility of frequent endoscopic stent exchange due to the altered anatomy.