The objective is to investigate whether percutaneous access (pEVAR) is superior to cutdown access (cEVAR) in terms of safety and efficacy during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).
Methods
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 1999 to December 2020 for studies reporting on the comparison between percutaneous and cutdown techniques for endovascular repair of AAAs. Outcomes evaluated were technical success rates, access site-related complications and operative time, and hospital stay.
Results
Four randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies with a total of 1683 patients comprising 2715 groin accesses were eligible for the meta-analysis. pEVAR was associated with a lower risk of overall complications (odds ratio (OR) = 0.63; p = .005) and seroma/lymphorrhea (OR, 0.18; p = .0001) and shortened operation time (MD = −39.04; p = .002) and the length of hospital stay (MD = −0.75; p < .00001) compared with cEVAR. The technical success rate for pEVAR was 95.1% (694/729), with an overall OR of 0.27 (95% CI 0.14–0.55, p = .0003) comparing pEVAR with cEVAR. Furthermore, pEVAR did not increase the risk of site infection, femoral artery thrombosis, postoperative hematoma, nerve injury, dissection, and bleeding.
Conclusion
Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair is a safe and effective method for the treatment of AAA. It reduces the risk of overall complications and shortens the operation time and hospital stay. The technical success rate of pEVAR is lower than that of cEVAR, which may be linked to the selection of patients, operator experience, and the use of ultrasound. Large definitive trials are required to draw robust conclusions.
WattsMM. Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair: current status and future trends. Seminars Interv Radiol2020; 37: 339–345.
2.
SteuerJLachatMVeithFJ, et al.Endovascular grafts for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Eur Heart J2016; 37: 145–151.
3.
KrajcerZWoodDAStrickmanN, et al.Pivotal clinical study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the MANTA vascular closure device during percutaneous EVAR and TEVAR procedures. J Endovascular Ther2020; 27: 414–420.
4.
MetcalfeMJBrownriggJRWBlackSA, et al.Unselected percutaneous access with large vessel closure for endovascular aortic surgery: experience and predictors of technical success. Eur J Vasc Endovascular Surg2012; 43: 378–381.
5.
DeVitoPJrKimyaghalamAShoukryS, et al.Comparing and correlating outcomes between open and percutaneous access in endovascular aneurysm epair in aortic aneurysms using a retrospective cohort study design. Int J Vasc Med2020; 2020: 8823039.
6.
KorenyMRiedmüllerENikfardjamM, et al.Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization. JAMA2004; 291: 350–357.
7.
AntoniouGAAntoniouSA. Percutaneous access does not confer superior clinical outcomes over cutdown access for endovascular aneurysm repair: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2020; S1078-5884(20): 31001–31007.
8.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ2009; 339: b2700.
9.
VierhoutBPSaleemBROttA, et al.A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials2015; 16: 408.
10.
KrajcerZNelsonPBianchiC, et al.Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: methods and initial outcomes from the first prospective, multicenter trial. J Cardiovasc Surg2011; 52: 651–659.
11.
UhlmannMEWalterCTaherF, et al.Successful percutaneous access for endovascular aneurysm repair is significantly cheaper than femoral cutdown in a prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Surg2018; 68: 384–391.
12.
VierhoutBPPolRAOttMA, et al.Randomized multicenter trial on percutaneous versus open access in endovascular aneurysm repair (PiERO). J Vasc Surg2019; 69: 1429–1436.
13.
TorselloGBKasprzakBKlenkE, et al.Endovascular suture versus cutdown for endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective randomized pilot study. J Vasc Surg2003; 38: 78–82.
14.
NelsonPRKracjerZKansalN, et al.A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial). J Vasc Surg2014; 59: 1181–1193.
15.
FredholmKEibergJPLönnL, et al.Cutdown technique is superior to fascial closure for femoral artery access after elective endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovascular Surg2019; 58: 350–356.
16.
Jean-BaptisteEHassen-KhodjaRHaudebourgP, et al.Percutaneous closure devices for endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: a prospective, non-randomized comparative study. Eur J Vasc Endovascular Surg2008; 35: 422–428.
17.
AgrusaCJMeltzerAJSchneiderDB, et al.Safety and effectiveness of a “percutaneous-first” approach to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg2017; 43: 79–84.
18.
ThurstonJSCamaraAAlcasidN, et al.Outcomes and cost comparison of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair versus endovascular aortic repair with open femoral exposure. J Surg Res2019; 240: 124–129.
19.
HowellMDoughteryKStrickmanN, et al.Percutaneous repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using the AneuRx stent graft and the percutaneous vascular surgery device. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interv2002; 55: 281–287.
20.
IchihashiTItoTKinoshitaY, et al.Safety and utility of total percutaneous endovascular aortic repair with a single Perclose ProGlide closure device. J Vasc Surg2016; 63: 585–588.
21.
MoraschMDKibbeMREvansME, et al.Percutaneous repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg2004; 40: 12–16.
22.
SmithSTTimaranCHValentineRJ, et al.Percutaneous access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: can selection criteria be expanded?Ann Vasc Surg2009; 23: 621–626.
23.
EtezadiVKatzenBTNaiemA, et al.Percutaneous suture-mediated closure versus surgical arteriotomy in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Interv Radiol2011; 22: 142–147.
24.
O’DonnellTFXDeerySEBoitanoLT, et al.The long-term implications of access complications during EVAR. J Vasc Surg2020; 1(20): S0741–S5214.
25.
CostaGBieliauskasGFukutomiM, et al.Feasibility and safety of a fully percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement program. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2021; 97: E418–E424.
26.
CaoZWuWZhaoK, et al.Safety and efficacy of totally percutaneous access compared with open femoral exposure for endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovascular Ther2017; 24: 246–253.
27.
GimzewskaMJacksonAIYeohSE, et al.Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2017; 2: CD010185.
28.
ArthursZMStarnesBWSohnVY, et al.Ultrasound-guided access improves rate of access-related complications for totally percutaneous aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg2008; 22: 736–741.
29.
ManungaJMGloviczkiPOderichGS, et al.Femoral artery calcification as a determinant of success for percutaneous access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg2013; 58: 1208–1212.
30.
SiracuseJJFarberAKalishJA, et al.Comparison of access type on perioperative outcomes after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg2018; 68: 91–99.
31.
KauvarDSMartinEDGivensMD. Thirty-day outcomes after elective percutaneous or open endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg2016; 31: 46–51.
32.
WanS-HKilluAMHodgeDO, et al.Obesity does not increase complication rate of percutaneous epicardial access. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol2014; 25: 1174–1179.
33.
MousaAYCampbellJEBroceM, et al.Predictors of percutaneous access failure requiring open femoral surgical conversion during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg2013; 58: 1213–1219.
34.
SaadiEKSaadiMSaadiR, et al.Totally percutaneous access using perclose proglide for endovascular treatment of aortic diseases. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg2017; 32: 43–48.
35.
TraulDKClairDGGrayB, et al.Percutaneous endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: a feasibility study. J Vasc Surg2000; 32: 770–776.
36.
BecharaCFBarshesNRPisimisisG, et al.Predicting the learning curve and failures of total percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg2013; 57: 72–76.
37.
TehLGSieunarineKvan SchieG, et al.Use of the percutaneous vascular surgery device for closure of femoral access sites during endovascular aneurysm repair: lessons from our experience. Eur J Vasc Endovascular Surg2001; 22: 418–423.
