Retroperitoneal Versus Direct Femoral Artery Approach for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Access: A Case–Control Study

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 340-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vahid Etezadi ◽  
Barry T. Katzen ◽  
James F. Benenati ◽  
Sara Alehashemi ◽  
Athanassios I. Tsoukas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Artery ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Control Study

Risk Factors for Groin Wound Infection After Femoral Artery Catheterization A Case-Control Study

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip M. Polgreen ◽  
Daniel J. Diekema ◽  
Jeff VandeBerg ◽  
R. Todd Wiblin ◽  
Yi Yi Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Wound Infection ◽  
Femoral Artery ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Case Control ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Hematoma Formation ◽  
Control Study

Objective.Groin wound infection (GWI) after femoral artery catheterization is unusual. However, several reports of GWI associated with the use of a Perclose device appear in the surgical literature.Design.A case-control study.Setting.We pooled 23 cases and 83 controls from a university hospital and a community medical center.Patients.A case was defined as a patient who developed a GWI after a femoral artery catheterization. At the university hospital, 3 controls were randomly selected from the at-risk population and matched to each case by time of procedure only (within 2 weeks). At the community medical center, 4 controls were selected and matched to each case by time of procedure (within 2 weeks), sex, and age (within 5 years).Results.We considered several covariates, including age, sex, body mass index, medical conditions, Perclose use, hematoma formation, and antithrombotic therapy. In a multivariate model, only hematoma formation (odds ratio, 68.8; 95% confidence interval, 12.1-391.4) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 6.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-33.6) were statistically significant predictors of GWI; Perclose use (odds ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-3.7) was not a statistically significant predictor of GWI. However, most of the hematomas (15/17) formed after procedures during which a Perclose device was used.Conclusion.Perclose use did not have any additional effect on GWI risk beyond the effect that hematoma formation had.

scholarly journals Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Including Total Debranching on Femoral Artery for Arch Rupture

2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. e123-e125
Author(s):  
Yu Inaba ◽  
Tsutomu Ito ◽  
Sachiko Hayashi ◽  
Tatsuo Takahashi ◽  
Takahiko Misumi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Artery ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Aortic Repair

scholarly journals A Single Center Study on the Risks of Peri-Intervention Stroke in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) and Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Repair (EVAR)

2022 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Jirayoot Chusooth ◽  
Chanon Kongkamol ◽  
Ruedeekorn Suwannanon ◽  
Dhanakom Premprabha ◽  
Voravit Chittithavorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Univariable Analysis ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
Single Center Study ◽  
Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Repair

(1) Background: The risk factors of peri-intervention stroke (PIS) in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) are different. This study aimed to compare the risks of PIS in both interventions. (2) Methods: Patients who had suffered a PIS related to TEVAR or EVAR from January 2008 to June 2015 in Songklanagarind Hospital were selected as the cases, while patients who had not suffered PIS were randomly selected to create a 1:4 case: control ratio for analysis. The associations between the factors from pre- to post-intervention and PISs in TEVAR or EVAR cases were analyzed by univariable analysis (p < 0.1). The independent risks of PIS were identified by multivariable analysis and presented in odds ratios (p < 0.05). (3) Results: A total of 17 (2.2%) out of 777 patients who had undergone TEVAR or EVAR experienced PIS, of which 9/518 (1.7%) and 8/259 (3.1%) cases were in TEVAR and EVAR groups, respectively. PIS developed within the first 24 h in nine (52.9%) cases. Large vessel ischemic stroke or watershed infarctions were the most common etiologies of PIS. The independent risks of PIS were the volume of intra-intervention blood loss (1.99 (1.88–21.12), p < 0.001) in the TEVAR-related PIS, and intervention time (2.16 (1.95–2.37), p = 0.010) and post-intervention hyperglycemia (18.60 (1.60–216.06), p = 0.001) in the EVAR-related PIS. There were no differences in the rate of PIS among the operators, intervention techniques, and status of the interventions performed. (4) Conclusion: The risks of PIS in TEVAR or EVAR in our center were different and possibly independent of the operator expertise and intervention techniques.

Clinical efficacy and safety of the PRO-glide device as a sUture-mediated ClosurE in Thoracic EndoVascular Aortic Repair in patients with previous groin intervention (from the PRODUCE-TEVAR Trial)

Vascular ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 170853812094966
Author(s):  
Ömer Çelik ◽  
Ahmet Anıl Şahin ◽  
Ahmet Güner ◽  
Ali Rıza Demir ◽  
Nedim Uzun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Artery ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Exclusion Criterion ◽  
Technical Failure ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Femoral Approach ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
History Of

Background While the percutaneous approach is increasingly preferred, suture-mediated closure devices have been put into clinical practice to close the femoral artery during procedures requiring a large-sized introducer. However, scar in the groin is considered a contraindication or an exclusion criterion for percutaneous procedures. The aim of our study was to investigate the outcomes and safety of Pro-Glide device as suture-mediated closure device in patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with percutaneous femoral access ≥22 F who had previous groin intervention. Methods A total of 73 patients who underwent endovascular repair with percutaneous femoral access were retrospectively included in the study. Previous groin intervention was defined as history of open surgical access or large sheath insertion (>18 F) to femoral artery because of endovascular or valvular intervention. Patients were divided into two groups as who had previous groin intervention PGI (+) and had not PGI (−). Results A total of 73 patients [60 male (82.2%)] were included in the study. Seventeen patients had PGI, and 56 did not. When groups were compared in terms of sheath sizes, a significantly higher sheath sizes were used in PGI (+) patients (24.5 ± 1.1 F vs. 23.8 ± 0.9 F, p = 0.005). The overall success rate in the femoral approach with pre-close technique was statistically insignificant between two groups (94.1% vs. 96.4%, p = 0.55). One patient in PGI (+) group and two patients in PGI (−) had technical failure for percutaneous femoral approach. One patient (5.9%) in PGI (+) group and one patient (1.8%) in PGI (−) group had femoral complications after the procedures; however, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of complications (5.9% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.13). Conclusion Pro-Glide device may be a safe and less invasive method for femoral access in patients with PGI and might not be considered as a contraindication for patients with history of PGI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document