- Email: [email protected]
IP037. Effectiveness of Aneurysm Sac Embolization for Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair
66S
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Abstracts
June Supplement 2017
Fig. Patients’ distribution in Rutherford Class (RC) Category during the study periods. FU, Follow-up. computerized database between January 2013 and December 2016. Of 93 patients treated for AIOD, 21 consecutive elective patients with chronic atherosclerotic TASC-D AIOD plus AAA (diameter >3.5cm) treated by AFX implantation were included. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients. Common iliac artery (CIA) and external iliac artery (EIA) stenosis (as percentage), and patency of internal iliac artery were reported. Aortic diameters and narrowest EIA diameter were also registered (Table). The outcome measures were technical and clinical success. Clinical success was defined as improvement in ankle-brachial index (ABI) and in Rutherford classes (RC). Immediate (30-day) and midterm patency, AAA exclusion, major adverse events (MAE), and mortality rates were also noted. Results: Seventeen patients (80.9%) were male, and mean age was 73.6 6 6.4 years. Mean preoperative ABI was 0.45 6 0.14. RC at baseline was 2 in 4 patients, 3 in 14, and 4 in the last 3. Four patients presented a CIA occlusion (19.1%), bilateral in one case (4.7%); detailed preoperative anatomical features are reported in the Table. Technical success was achieved in all cases. After AFX deployment, no reinforcing stent was implanted in CIA, while 18 EIAs presenting a stenosis >50% or a total occlusion required adjunctive self-expandable stent. One patient required a reintervention for closure device failure. At 30-day follow-up, no deaths, MAEs, or reinterventions were recorded. Patency of the AFX and iliac vessels was confirmed in all patients. Improvement in ABI was registered in all patients, mean value was 0.91 6 0.11. Mean follow-up time was 25.2 6 11.1 months, and 18 of 21 patients completed at least the 12-month follow-up. Primary patency was maintained in all cases. Two patients required a new endovascular procedure for a disease progression on the EIAs. No deaths or amputations occurred, while two patients sustained a myocardial infarction. ABI improvement from baseline was maintained (mean 0.88 6 0.13). Distribution in RC categories during study period is reported in the Fig. Conclusions: This is the largest study to examine the off-label use of the AFX unibody stent graft for the treatment of TASC-D AIOD with coexistent AAA. AFX stent graft appears to be a safe and effective solution for those complex lesions, as in case of isolated obstructive or aneurysmatic disease. Author Disclosures: L. Capoccia: Nothing to disclose; M. Formiconi: Nothing to disclose; W. Mansour: Nothing to disclose; N. Montelione: Nothing to disclose; C. Pranteda: Nothing to disclose; P. Sirignano: Nothing to disclose; F. Speziale: Nothing to disclose.
IP037. Effectiveness of Aneurysm Sac Embolization for Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Elena Marchiori,1 Giovanni Torsello,1 Nani Osada,1 Martin Austermann,2 Arne Schwindt,2 Theodosios Bisdas2. 1University of Münster, Muenster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Muenster, Germany; 2St. Franziskus Hospital, Muenster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Muenster, Germany
Objectives: The best-established strategies to treat type Ia endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are either increasing wall apposition of the endograft or extending the landing zone with extension cuffs, fenestrated cuffs, and chimney endografting. However, some patients are not suitable for such methods or present recurrence after those procedures. Aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of embolization to treat type Ia endoleak post-EVAR in highly selected patients. Methods: Between February 2011 and December 2016, 22 consecutive patients not eligible for either open surgery or complex endovascular repair underwent embolization of a type Ia endoleak post-EVAR at our institution. Society for Vascular Surgery Score was preoperatively performed to assess comorbidity severity. Primary end point was technical success, defined as the absence of type Ia endoleak in the completion angiography. Secondary end points were freedom from aneurysm-related reinterventions and freedom from sac enlargement. Results: Five patients (22.7%) were symptomatic and four (18.2%) were admitted with a contained rupture of the aneurysm. Mean Society for Vascular Surgery Score was 8.1 6 2.6 (range, 4.0-12.0). The embolization of the endoleak was performed with liquid embolic agent in 12 patients (54.6%), with liquid embolic agent combined with coils and/or plugs in 5 patients (22.7%), and with coils and/or plugs in 5 patients (22.7%). Technical success at the completion angiography was 100%. The postoperative imaging revealed complete sealing of the aneurysm in 14 cases (63.6%). Reintervention-free survival rates at 6 and 12 months were 79.1% and 64.4%, respectively. Ten of 22 patients underwent follow-up by magnetic resonance or computed tomography scans. Freedom from sac enlargement was achieved in six (60%) of 10 patients at a mean follow-up of 14.2 months (range 2.5-33.5 months). Among four patients (40%) with sac enlargement, 1 was treated with fenestrated cuff, 2 were managed expectantly by planning a sac size control in 6 months, and 1 underwent an unsuccessful re-embolization procedure.
Table. Aneurysm sac embolization for type Ia endoleak, overview of the literature
First author
Embolents
Maldonado1
Liquid adhesive
Maldonado1
Coil
Present study
Liquid embolic agent, coils, plugs
Faries2 Eberhardt3
Patients (No.)
Mean Success follow-up (%) (months)
10
100
3
67%
5,9 25
10
60%
14,2
Coils
7
100%
<12
Liquid embolic agent, coils
7
86%
10,3
Choi4
Liquid adhesive
6
ca.100
18
Henrikson5
Liquid embolic agent
5
67-100
3-18
Chun6
Liquid embolic agent
4
100
<2
Grisafi7
Liquid embolic agent
1
100
12
References for Table 1. Maldonado TS, Rosen RJ, Rockman CB, Adelman MA, Bajakian D, Jacobowitz GR, et al. Initial successful management of type I endoleak after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with n-butyl cyanoacrylate adhesive. J Vasc Surg 2003:38:664-70. 2. Faries PL, Cadot H, Agarwal G, Kent KC, Hollier LH, Marin ML. Management of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair: cuffs, coils, and conversion. J Vasc Surg 2003:37:1155-61. 3. Eberhardt KM, Sadeghi-Azandaryani M, Worlicek S, Koeppel T, Reiser MF, Treitl M. Treatment of type I endoleaks using transcatheter embolization with Onyx. J Endovasc Ther 2014:21:162-71. 4. Choi SY, Lee DY, Lee KH, Ko YG, Choi D, Shim WH, et al. Treatment of type I endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm: usefulness of N-butyl cyanoacrylate embolization in cases of failed secondary endovascular intervention. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011:22:155-62. 5. Henrikson O, Roos H, Falkenberg M. Ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx) to seal type 1 endoleak. A new technique. Vascular 2011:19:77-81. 6. Chun JY, Morgan R. Transcatheter embolisation of type 1 endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with Onyx: when no other treatment option is feasible. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2013:45:141-4. 7. Grisafi JL, Boiteau G, Detschelt E, Potts J, Kiproff P, Muluk SC. Endoluminal treatment of type Ia endoleak with Onyx. J Vasc Surg 2010:52:1346-9.
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Abstracts
67S
Volume 65, Number 6S was 16 6 11 mm Hg, 32 6 14 mm Hg in Endurant cases and Excluder cases, respectively, and they were significantly different (P ¼ .012). On the other hand, there was no correlation between the D value and T2E or aneurysmal sac shrinkage after EVAR statistically. Conclusions: IASP was reduced by EVAR using Endurant and Excluder. Excluder significantly reduced IASP compared to Endurant. However those D values did not concern with T2E or aneurysmal sac shrinkage after EVAR. To reduce T2E or achieve aneurysmal sac shrinkage, alternative methods should be considered, such as embolization of T2E sources during EVAR or severe postoperative blood pressure control. Author Disclosures: Y. Kurimoto: Medtronic Japan Co., Ltd.: consulting fees (eg, advisory boards); R. Maruyama: Nothing to disclose; K. Nakanishi: Nothing to disclose; M. Nojima: Nothing to disclose; A. Yamada: Nothing to disclose.
IP041. Evaluation of PEVAR Therapeutic Benefits in a Large Single-Center Experience Chao Yang,1 Kui Liu,1 Yiqing Li,1 Hong Zheng,1 Bi Jin,1 Mohamed A. 2 Zayed2. 1Tongji Medical College, Wuhan, China; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo
Fig. Freedom from reintervention.
Conclusions: Patients with type Ia endoleaks and not suitable for any complex aneurysm repair may take advantage of embolization treatment (liquid embolic agent, coils, plugs). Due to the residual risk of sac expansion, a strict surveillance protocol is mandatory. Author Disclosures: M. Austermann: Nothing to disclose; T. Bisdas: Medtronic: consulting fees (eg, advisory boards); E. Marchiori: Nothing to disclose; N. Osada: Nothing to disclose; A. Schwindt: Avinger Inc: consulting fees (eg, advisory boards); G. Torsello: Nothing to disclose.
IP039. Measurement of Intra-Aneurysm Sac Pressure During Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair Ryushi Maruyama,1 Akira Yamada,1 Masanori Nojima,2 Yoshihiko Kurimoto,1 Katsuhiko Nakanishi1. 1Teine Keijinkai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan; 2University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Objectives: The aim of this study was to measure the intra-aneurysm sac pressure (IASP) and systemic blood pressure (SBP) simultaneously during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and investigate how IASP depression compared to SBP concerned with the incidence of subsequent type II endoleak (T2E) and the shrinkage of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac diameter after EVAR. Methods: Between April 2014 and September 2015, 26 patients who underwent EVAR using one of two kinds of stent grafts (Endurant, 18; and Excluder, 8) for an atherosclerotic AAA were reviewed. IASP was measured using the KMP catheter through the 5F introducer placed on the contralateral side of the femoral artery. SBP was measured through either side of the radial artery simultaneously. Completion aortogram showed no type I or type III leaks in all cases. The incidence of T2E at 7 days, 6, and 12 months and AAA sac diameter at 6 and 12 months after EVAR were evaluated by enhanced computed tomography. Results: IASP (76 6 15 mm Hg) was significantly lowered after EVAR compared to SBP (96 6 14 mm Hg) in all cases (P < .001). The average difference between SBP and IASP (D) was 21 6 14 mm Hg. The D value
Objectives: Recent trials have demonstrated a noninferiority of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) using adjunctive Perclose technique with ProGlide closure compared to formal surgical cutdown technique (SEVAR). We aimed to similarly evaluate our single-center experience in a large patient subset. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent EVAR from 2007 to 2015. Patient demographics, perioperative variables (operation time, hemostasis, access site complications, intensive care unit time, hospital length of stay), and postoperative variables were evaluated. Results: During the study period, 236 cases were analyzed. Among these patients, 137 patients underwent PEVAR, and 99 patients underwent SEVAR. There were no significant differences in demographics between PEVAR and SEVAR groups (Table I). PEVAR patients had a shorter hospital length of stay, operation time, intensive care unit time, and lower frequency of total access site complications (hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, lymphocele, infection, or dissection). Moreover, PEVAR did not increase the risk of postoperative complications, readmissions, or reoperations (Table II). Conclusions: In a large reported PEVAR patient group, we observed that PEVAR was a safe alternative to SEVAR. Most notably, patients who underwent PEVAR had shorter operative times, reduced hospital stay, and less access site complications.
Table I. Overview of the demographics Variablea Age (years)
PEVAR (n ¼ 137)
SEVAR (n ¼ 99)
P
67.8 6 10.2
68.3 6 11.8
.7097
Male
111 (81.0)
75 (75.6)
.9167
Body mass index (kg/m2)
23.1 6 3.4
22.9 6 3.1
.8013
Smoking
57 (41.6)
50 (50.5)
.7658
Hypertension
49 (35.8)
42 (42.4)
.8982
Hyperlipidemia
22 (16.1)
20 (20.2)
.9544
COPD
25 (18.2)
17 (17.2)
.9997
Heart disease
31 (22.6)
26 (26.3)
Cerebrovascular disease
15 (10.9)
11 (11.1)
Diabetes mellitus
23 (16.8)
18 (18.2)
.9993
8 (5.8)
7 (7.1)
.9974
Chronic renal failure
.9813 1
COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, PEVAR, percutaneous endovascular aortic repair; SEVAR, surgical cutdown endovascular aortic repair. a Data are reported as mean 6 standard deviation or number (%).
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Abstracts
June Supplement 2017
Fig. Patients’ distribution in Rutherford Class (RC) Category during the study periods. FU, Follow-up. computerized database between January 2013 and December 2016. Of 93 patients treated for AIOD, 21 consecutive elective patients with chronic atherosclerotic TASC-D AIOD plus AAA (diameter >3.5cm) treated by AFX implantation were included. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients. Common iliac artery (CIA) and external iliac artery (EIA) stenosis (as percentage), and patency of internal iliac artery were reported. Aortic diameters and narrowest EIA diameter were also registered (Table). The outcome measures were technical and clinical success. Clinical success was defined as improvement in ankle-brachial index (ABI) and in Rutherford classes (RC). Immediate (30-day) and midterm patency, AAA exclusion, major adverse events (MAE), and mortality rates were also noted. Results: Seventeen patients (80.9%) were male, and mean age was 73.6 6 6.4 years. Mean preoperative ABI was 0.45 6 0.14. RC at baseline was 2 in 4 patients, 3 in 14, and 4 in the last 3. Four patients presented a CIA occlusion (19.1%), bilateral in one case (4.7%); detailed preoperative anatomical features are reported in the Table. Technical success was achieved in all cases. After AFX deployment, no reinforcing stent was implanted in CIA, while 18 EIAs presenting a stenosis >50% or a total occlusion required adjunctive self-expandable stent. One patient required a reintervention for closure device failure. At 30-day follow-up, no deaths, MAEs, or reinterventions were recorded. Patency of the AFX and iliac vessels was confirmed in all patients. Improvement in ABI was registered in all patients, mean value was 0.91 6 0.11. Mean follow-up time was 25.2 6 11.1 months, and 18 of 21 patients completed at least the 12-month follow-up. Primary patency was maintained in all cases. Two patients required a new endovascular procedure for a disease progression on the EIAs. No deaths or amputations occurred, while two patients sustained a myocardial infarction. ABI improvement from baseline was maintained (mean 0.88 6 0.13). Distribution in RC categories during study period is reported in the Fig. Conclusions: This is the largest study to examine the off-label use of the AFX unibody stent graft for the treatment of TASC-D AIOD with coexistent AAA. AFX stent graft appears to be a safe and effective solution for those complex lesions, as in case of isolated obstructive or aneurysmatic disease. Author Disclosures: L. Capoccia: Nothing to disclose; M. Formiconi: Nothing to disclose; W. Mansour: Nothing to disclose; N. Montelione: Nothing to disclose; C. Pranteda: Nothing to disclose; P. Sirignano: Nothing to disclose; F. Speziale: Nothing to disclose.
IP037. Effectiveness of Aneurysm Sac Embolization for Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Elena Marchiori,1 Giovanni Torsello,1 Nani Osada,1 Martin Austermann,2 Arne Schwindt,2 Theodosios Bisdas2. 1University of Münster, Muenster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Muenster, Germany; 2St. Franziskus Hospital, Muenster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Muenster, Germany
Objectives: The best-established strategies to treat type Ia endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are either increasing wall apposition of the endograft or extending the landing zone with extension cuffs, fenestrated cuffs, and chimney endografting. However, some patients are not suitable for such methods or present recurrence after those procedures. Aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of embolization to treat type Ia endoleak post-EVAR in highly selected patients. Methods: Between February 2011 and December 2016, 22 consecutive patients not eligible for either open surgery or complex endovascular repair underwent embolization of a type Ia endoleak post-EVAR at our institution. Society for Vascular Surgery Score was preoperatively performed to assess comorbidity severity. Primary end point was technical success, defined as the absence of type Ia endoleak in the completion angiography. Secondary end points were freedom from aneurysm-related reinterventions and freedom from sac enlargement. Results: Five patients (22.7%) were symptomatic and four (18.2%) were admitted with a contained rupture of the aneurysm. Mean Society for Vascular Surgery Score was 8.1 6 2.6 (range, 4.0-12.0). The embolization of the endoleak was performed with liquid embolic agent in 12 patients (54.6%), with liquid embolic agent combined with coils and/or plugs in 5 patients (22.7%), and with coils and/or plugs in 5 patients (22.7%). Technical success at the completion angiography was 100%. The postoperative imaging revealed complete sealing of the aneurysm in 14 cases (63.6%). Reintervention-free survival rates at 6 and 12 months were 79.1% and 64.4%, respectively. Ten of 22 patients underwent follow-up by magnetic resonance or computed tomography scans. Freedom from sac enlargement was achieved in six (60%) of 10 patients at a mean follow-up of 14.2 months (range 2.5-33.5 months). Among four patients (40%) with sac enlargement, 1 was treated with fenestrated cuff, 2 were managed expectantly by planning a sac size control in 6 months, and 1 underwent an unsuccessful re-embolization procedure.
Table. Aneurysm sac embolization for type Ia endoleak, overview of the literature
First author
Embolents
Maldonado1
Liquid adhesive
Maldonado1
Coil
Present study
Liquid embolic agent, coils, plugs
Faries2 Eberhardt3
Patients (No.)
Mean Success follow-up (%) (months)
10
100
3
67%
5,9 25
10
60%
14,2
Coils
7
100%
<12
Liquid embolic agent, coils
7
86%
10,3
Choi4
Liquid adhesive
6
ca.100
18
Henrikson5
Liquid embolic agent
5
67-100
3-18
Chun6
Liquid embolic agent
4
100
<2
Grisafi7
Liquid embolic agent
1
100
12
References for Table 1. Maldonado TS, Rosen RJ, Rockman CB, Adelman MA, Bajakian D, Jacobowitz GR, et al. Initial successful management of type I endoleak after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with n-butyl cyanoacrylate adhesive. J Vasc Surg 2003:38:664-70. 2. Faries PL, Cadot H, Agarwal G, Kent KC, Hollier LH, Marin ML. Management of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair: cuffs, coils, and conversion. J Vasc Surg 2003:37:1155-61. 3. Eberhardt KM, Sadeghi-Azandaryani M, Worlicek S, Koeppel T, Reiser MF, Treitl M. Treatment of type I endoleaks using transcatheter embolization with Onyx. J Endovasc Ther 2014:21:162-71. 4. Choi SY, Lee DY, Lee KH, Ko YG, Choi D, Shim WH, et al. Treatment of type I endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm: usefulness of N-butyl cyanoacrylate embolization in cases of failed secondary endovascular intervention. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011:22:155-62. 5. Henrikson O, Roos H, Falkenberg M. Ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx) to seal type 1 endoleak. A new technique. Vascular 2011:19:77-81. 6. Chun JY, Morgan R. Transcatheter embolisation of type 1 endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with Onyx: when no other treatment option is feasible. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2013:45:141-4. 7. Grisafi JL, Boiteau G, Detschelt E, Potts J, Kiproff P, Muluk SC. Endoluminal treatment of type Ia endoleak with Onyx. J Vasc Surg 2010:52:1346-9.
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Abstracts
67S
Volume 65, Number 6S was 16 6 11 mm Hg, 32 6 14 mm Hg in Endurant cases and Excluder cases, respectively, and they were significantly different (P ¼ .012). On the other hand, there was no correlation between the D value and T2E or aneurysmal sac shrinkage after EVAR statistically. Conclusions: IASP was reduced by EVAR using Endurant and Excluder. Excluder significantly reduced IASP compared to Endurant. However those D values did not concern with T2E or aneurysmal sac shrinkage after EVAR. To reduce T2E or achieve aneurysmal sac shrinkage, alternative methods should be considered, such as embolization of T2E sources during EVAR or severe postoperative blood pressure control. Author Disclosures: Y. Kurimoto: Medtronic Japan Co., Ltd.: consulting fees (eg, advisory boards); R. Maruyama: Nothing to disclose; K. Nakanishi: Nothing to disclose; M. Nojima: Nothing to disclose; A. Yamada: Nothing to disclose.
IP041. Evaluation of PEVAR Therapeutic Benefits in a Large Single-Center Experience Chao Yang,1 Kui Liu,1 Yiqing Li,1 Hong Zheng,1 Bi Jin,1 Mohamed A. 2 Zayed2. 1Tongji Medical College, Wuhan, China; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo
Fig. Freedom from reintervention.
Conclusions: Patients with type Ia endoleaks and not suitable for any complex aneurysm repair may take advantage of embolization treatment (liquid embolic agent, coils, plugs). Due to the residual risk of sac expansion, a strict surveillance protocol is mandatory. Author Disclosures: M. Austermann: Nothing to disclose; T. Bisdas: Medtronic: consulting fees (eg, advisory boards); E. Marchiori: Nothing to disclose; N. Osada: Nothing to disclose; A. Schwindt: Avinger Inc: consulting fees (eg, advisory boards); G. Torsello: Nothing to disclose.
IP039. Measurement of Intra-Aneurysm Sac Pressure During Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair Ryushi Maruyama,1 Akira Yamada,1 Masanori Nojima,2 Yoshihiko Kurimoto,1 Katsuhiko Nakanishi1. 1Teine Keijinkai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan; 2University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Objectives: The aim of this study was to measure the intra-aneurysm sac pressure (IASP) and systemic blood pressure (SBP) simultaneously during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and investigate how IASP depression compared to SBP concerned with the incidence of subsequent type II endoleak (T2E) and the shrinkage of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac diameter after EVAR. Methods: Between April 2014 and September 2015, 26 patients who underwent EVAR using one of two kinds of stent grafts (Endurant, 18; and Excluder, 8) for an atherosclerotic AAA were reviewed. IASP was measured using the KMP catheter through the 5F introducer placed on the contralateral side of the femoral artery. SBP was measured through either side of the radial artery simultaneously. Completion aortogram showed no type I or type III leaks in all cases. The incidence of T2E at 7 days, 6, and 12 months and AAA sac diameter at 6 and 12 months after EVAR were evaluated by enhanced computed tomography. Results: IASP (76 6 15 mm Hg) was significantly lowered after EVAR compared to SBP (96 6 14 mm Hg) in all cases (P < .001). The average difference between SBP and IASP (D) was 21 6 14 mm Hg. The D value
Objectives: Recent trials have demonstrated a noninferiority of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) using adjunctive Perclose technique with ProGlide closure compared to formal surgical cutdown technique (SEVAR). We aimed to similarly evaluate our single-center experience in a large patient subset. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent EVAR from 2007 to 2015. Patient demographics, perioperative variables (operation time, hemostasis, access site complications, intensive care unit time, hospital length of stay), and postoperative variables were evaluated. Results: During the study period, 236 cases were analyzed. Among these patients, 137 patients underwent PEVAR, and 99 patients underwent SEVAR. There were no significant differences in demographics between PEVAR and SEVAR groups (Table I). PEVAR patients had a shorter hospital length of stay, operation time, intensive care unit time, and lower frequency of total access site complications (hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, lymphocele, infection, or dissection). Moreover, PEVAR did not increase the risk of postoperative complications, readmissions, or reoperations (Table II). Conclusions: In a large reported PEVAR patient group, we observed that PEVAR was a safe alternative to SEVAR. Most notably, patients who underwent PEVAR had shorter operative times, reduced hospital stay, and less access site complications.
Table I. Overview of the demographics Variablea Age (years)
PEVAR (n ¼ 137)
SEVAR (n ¼ 99)
P
67.8 6 10.2
68.3 6 11.8
.7097
Male
111 (81.0)
75 (75.6)
.9167
Body mass index (kg/m2)
23.1 6 3.4
22.9 6 3.1
.8013
Smoking
57 (41.6)
50 (50.5)
.7658
Hypertension
49 (35.8)
42 (42.4)
.8982
Hyperlipidemia
22 (16.1)
20 (20.2)
.9544
COPD
25 (18.2)
17 (17.2)
.9997
Heart disease
31 (22.6)
26 (26.3)
Cerebrovascular disease
15 (10.9)
11 (11.1)
Diabetes mellitus
23 (16.8)
18 (18.2)
.9993
8 (5.8)
7 (7.1)
.9974
Chronic renal failure
.9813 1
COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, PEVAR, percutaneous endovascular aortic repair; SEVAR, surgical cutdown endovascular aortic repair. a Data are reported as mean 6 standard deviation or number (%).