Comparison of percutaneous versus open femoral cutdown access for endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Objective

Ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (REVAR) is being increasingly used to treat ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs). However, the comparison between totally percutaneous (pREVAR) vs femoral cutdown (cREVAR) access for REVAR has not been studied. We used a national surgical database to evaluate the 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing pREVAR vs cREVAR.

Methods

Patients who underwent EVAR for rAAA between 2011 and 2014, inclusively, were studied in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) targeted vascular database. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare preoperative demographics, operation-specific variables, and postoperative outcomes between those who had pREVAR and cREVAR.

Results

We identified 502 patients who underwent REVAR, of which 129 had pREVAR (25.7%) and 373 cREVAR (74.3%). Between 2011 and 2014, the use of totally percutaneous access for repair increased from 14% to 32%. Of all patients undergoing REVAR, 24% had bilateral percutaneous access, 2% had attempted percutaneous access converted to cutdown, 64% had bilateral femoral cutdowns, and 10% had single femoral cutdown. Univariate analysis showed there were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, AAA size, or other high-risk physiologic comorbidities between the two groups. There was also no difference in rates of preoperative hemodynamic instability (48.1% vs 45.0%; P = .55) or need for perioperative transfusion (67.4% vs 67.8%; P = .94). There was a higher incidence of use of regional anesthesia for pREVAR compared with cREVAR (20.9% vs 7.8%; P < .01). The incidence of postoperative wound complications was similar between both groups (4.8% vs 5.4%; P = .79), whereas hospital length of stay was shorter in the pREVAR group (mean difference, 1.3 days). Overall 30-day mortality was higher in the pREVAR group (28.7% vs 20.1%; P = .04), and operative time was longer (mean difference, 6.3 minutes). However, when pREVARs done in 2011 to 2012 were compared with those done in 2013 to 2014, 30-day mortality decreased from 38.2% to 25.3% and operative time decreased by 25 minutes (188 to 163 minutes). Multivariate analysis showed there were no significant differences in mortality, wound complications, hospital length of stay, or operative time between pREVAR and cREVAR.

Conclusions

The ACS NSQIP targeted vascular database shows that there has been increased adoption of pREVAR in recent years, with improved mortality and operative time over the 4-year study period. At this point, pREVAR has not yet been shown to be superior to cREVAR for rAAA, but these outcome improvements are encouraging and likely attributable to increased operator experience.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles