Access site complications in thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous access and use of vascular closure devices facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedures during local anesthesia and allow immediate detection of signs of spinal ischemia. However, the very large bore access (usually ≥22F sheath) associated with TEVAR increases the risk of vascular complications. In this study, we sought to define the safety and feasibility of two percutaneous femoral artery closure devices during TEVAR, in terms of access site vascular complications and major, life-threatening, or fatal bleeding (≥major) within 48 hours. Access site vascular complications were defined as technical failure of vascular closure or later formation of pseudoaneurysm.

Methods: From March 2010 to December 2022, 199 transfemoral TEVAR were performed at Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland. We retrospectively categorized these into three groups, based on surgeon preference for the access technique and femoral artery closure method: (1) surgical cut-down and vessel closure, n = 85 (42.7%), (2) percutaneous access and vascular closure with suture-based ProGlide, n = 56 (28.1%), or (3) percutaneous access and vascular closure with ultrasound-guided plug-based MANTA, n = 58 (29.1%). The primary outcome measure was technical success of vascular closure and access site vascular complications during index hospitalization. Secondary outcome measures were ≥major bleeding, early mortality, and hospital stay.

Results: The technical success rate was 97.6% vs 91.1% vs 93.1% for surgical cut-down, ProGlide, and MANTA, respectively (P = .213). The rate of access site vascular complication was 3.5% vs 8.9% vs 10.3%, respectively (P = .290), with two pseudoaneurysms detected postoperatively and conservatively managed in the MANTA group. The vascular closure method was not associated with increased risk of ≥major bleeding, early mortality, or hospital stay on univariate analysis. Predictors for ≥major bleeding after TEVAR in multivariable analysis were urgent procedure (odds ratio: 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-5.5; P = .003) and simultaneous aortic branch revascularization (odds ratio: 2.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-5.4; P = .008).

Conclusions: In this study, the technical success rates of the percutaneous techniques demonstrated their feasibility during TEVAR. However, the number of access site complications for percutaneous techniques was higher compared with open approach, although the difference was not statistically significant. In the lack of evidence, the safety of the new MANTA plug-based vascular closure for TEVAR warrants further investigation.

Keywords: Access site complications; Thoracic endovascular aortic repair; Vascular closure devices.