当前位置： SCI文献检索 > ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY期刊下所有文献 > Retroperitoneal versus direct femoral artery approach for thoracic endovascular aortic repair access: a case-control study.

Retroperitoneal versus direct femoral artery approach for thoracic endovascular aortic repair access: a case-control study.

Abstract：

BACKGROUND:Many individuals who are candidates for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are found to have iliac artery anatomy and/or disease that preclude transfemoral endovascular access and require retroperitoneal surgical approach through more proximal arteries. This relatively more invasive technique could potentially affect the procedural outcomes. This study compares the retroperitoneal with transfemoral access used for TEVAR in a single center. METHOD:In this study, 133 consecutive patients (96 men; mean age ± SD: 69.5 ± 14.7 years) who underwent TEVAR between 1994 and 2009 in a single center were retrospectively evaluated. The type of endovascular access was identified in all the patients. The basic demographics, access method, endograft type, 30-day morbidity and mortality rates, as well as procedure recordings including fluoroscopic and procedure duration, estimated blood loss, and duration of hospitalization were compared between the TEVAR procedures performed using a surgical retroperitoneal approach and those using the standard femoral access. RESULTS:Retroperitoneal access was used in 19 (14.3%; 13 women; mean age ± SD: 71 ± 12.2 years) and direct femoral access in 114 (85.7%; 24 women; mean age ± SD: 69 ± 15.4 years) patients. Two of the retroperitoneal accesses were obtained after failure of femoral approach. Techniques that were used included iliac artery conduit (seven patients), aortic artery conduit (eight patients), aortobifemoral artery graft conduit (one patient), and direct sheath introduction through the distal aorta (two patients) or common iliac artery (one patient). Retroperitoneal approach was used more frequently in women (35%) as compared with men (6%) (p = 0.0001). In all, 79% of the retroperitoneal approaches were associated with use of delivery sheath sizes larger than 24F (p = 0.049). TEVAR technical success was 100% with retroperitoneal and 97.3% with femoral access (p > 0.05). Thirty-day mortality rates were 0% and 8.8% and the rates of access artery injury were 5.3% and 4.4% in retroperitoneal and femoral access groups, respectively (p > 0.05). The incidence of retroperitoneal hematoma was significantly higher with retroperitoneal access (21% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.008). Additionally, retroperitoneal access was associated with significant increase in estimated blood loss and duration of hospitalization (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Type of access does not affect TEVAR success and the early mortality rate. Retroperitoneal approach is a valuable alternative technique in cases involving failed or impossible femoral access. However, this approach is associated with higher chances of retroperitoneal bleeding and longer procedural time and duration of hospitalization. Thoracic endografts with smaller delivery systems could minimize the need for this approach in the future.

journal_name

Ann Vasc Surg

journal_title

Annals of vascular surgery

authors

Etezadi V,Katzen BT,Benenati JF,Alehashemi S,Tsoukas AI,Puente OA

doi

10.1016/j.avsg.2010.09.015

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2011-04-01 00:00:00

pages

340-4

issue

eissn

0890-5096

issn

1615-5947

pii

S0890-5096(10)00482-6

journal_volume

pub_type

杂志文章

在线工具

Retroperitoneal versus direct femoral artery approach for thoracic endovascular aortic repair access: a case-control study.