REGULAR CONTENT
Final ID
456
Type
Original Scientific Research-Oral or Pos
Authors
P Smith1, R Hieb2, C Lee3, P Patel3
Institutions
1Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, IL, 2N/A, Pewaukee, WI, 3Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
Purpose
To compare the accessed artery luminal diameter on follow up CT scans in patients who underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) vs. open endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).
Materials & Methods
Angiography, operative reports, follow up CT scans, complications and demographics of all patients who underwent PEVAR or EVAR between September 2008 and April 2016 performed conjointly with vascular surgery were reviewed. The patients were divided between open vs percutaneous based on arterial access. Study outcome measures include the difference in the luminal caliber of the accessed artery prior to and following EVAR using the most recent follow up contrast enhanced CT. Patients were excluded if there was solely non-contrast CT follow up, the access site was surgically repaired during the procedure or the accessed site was obscured on follow up. Access related complications were also recorded.
Results
A total of 207 patients who underwent EVAR or PEVAR within the defined interval (163 males, 399 arterial accesses, 210 of which were percutaneous), and 168 patients met inclusion criteria (339 arterial accesses, 166 of which were percutaneous.) Mean time to follow up CTA is 1.5 years (1.9 years for open and 1.1 years for percutaneous). The average decrease in luminal diameter of the accessed artery was 0.65 mm for those accessed open and 0.30 mm for those accessed percutaneously. The average diameter of the arteries accessed openly was 9.3 mm and 9.5 mm percutaneously. The delivery sheath sizes required ranged from 7-24 French. Percutaneous closure devices used were the Proglide Perclose and 8 French Angio-seal. There were 5 instances of inadequate hemostasis (3%) following percutaneous closure device deployment, which required open exposure
Conclusions
Midterm follow up of arterial access imaging changes of EVAR vs PEVAR show a promising trend towards less luminal diameter narrowing at the arteriotomy and high success rate, recognizing the expectedly longer term follow up data of the open group. Further investigation is warranted as we trend toward more PEVAR.
Final ID
456
Type
Original Scientific Research-Oral or Pos
Authors
P Smith1, R Hieb2, C Lee3, P Patel3
Institutions
1Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, IL, 2N/A, Pewaukee, WI, 3Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
Purpose
To compare the accessed artery luminal diameter on follow up CT scans in patients who underwent percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) vs. open endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).
Materials & Methods
Angiography, operative reports, follow up CT scans, complications and demographics of all patients who underwent PEVAR or EVAR between September 2008 and April 2016 performed conjointly with vascular surgery were reviewed. The patients were divided between open vs percutaneous based on arterial access. Study outcome measures include the difference in the luminal caliber of the accessed artery prior to and following EVAR using the most recent follow up contrast enhanced CT. Patients were excluded if there was solely non-contrast CT follow up, the access site was surgically repaired during the procedure or the accessed site was obscured on follow up. Access related complications were also recorded.
Results
A total of 207 patients who underwent EVAR or PEVAR within the defined interval (163 males, 399 arterial accesses, 210 of which were percutaneous), and 168 patients met inclusion criteria (339 arterial accesses, 166 of which were percutaneous.) Mean time to follow up CTA is 1.5 years (1.9 years for open and 1.1 years for percutaneous). The average decrease in luminal diameter of the accessed artery was 0.65 mm for those accessed open and 0.30 mm for those accessed percutaneously. The average diameter of the arteries accessed openly was 9.3 mm and 9.5 mm percutaneously. The delivery sheath sizes required ranged from 7-24 French. Percutaneous closure devices used were the Proglide Perclose and 8 French Angio-seal. There were 5 instances of inadequate hemostasis (3%) following percutaneous closure device deployment, which required open exposure
Conclusions
Midterm follow up of arterial access imaging changes of EVAR vs PEVAR show a promising trend towards less luminal diameter narrowing at the arteriotomy and high success rate, recognizing the expectedly longer term follow up data of the open group. Further investigation is warranted as we trend toward more PEVAR.