Short-term outcome and mid-term access site complications of the percutaneous approach to endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) after introduction in a vascular teaching hospital

  • Hanneke P. F. X. Moonen
  • Olivier H. J. Koning
  • Ronald F. van den Haak
  • Bart A. N. Verhoeven
  • Jan Willem HinnenEmail author
Original Article


The objective is to evaluate our center’s experience with the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous approach to endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) with use of the Perclose Proglide device, in the first period after introduction in our center in 2014. We retrospectively identified all patients that underwent PEVAR or endograft extension with percutaneous approach in our center in the urgent and elective setting. Included were all procedures performed between the introduction of the technique in January 2014 and February 2016 when PEVAR had become the predominant technique in our center. Exclusion progressed from expected difficulty of the procedure as estimated by the operator to total calcification of the ventral wall of the CFA towards the end of the study period. Surgical and clinical reports were used to analyze patient characteristics, procedural success, and short-term outcome after 30 days. Follow-up imaging was used to assess mid-term access site complications at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. A univariate regression analysis was conducted to determine significant predictors of access-related complications with the Perlcose Proglide system. Of all 78 patients (mean age 74, SD: 7 years, 70 men), 68 (87.2%) underwent PEVAR and 10 (12.8%) underwent endograft extension procedures with percutaneous approach. Sixty-seven (85.9%) patients underwent an elective procedure and 11 (14.1%) patients underwent urgent PEVAR. The total number of vessels that was percutaneously accessed was 142. Direct technical success of the procedure as analyzed per vessel was 98.6% (140/142), with two cases of conversion to the femoral cut-down approach. A total of 274 Perclose Proglide devices were placed. Device failure of the Perclose device occurred in 5.8% (16/274) and was reason for conversion to cut-down procedure in one case. Mean duration of the procedure and median time of hospitalization were 100 (SD: 34) min and 2 (IQR 1, 3) days, respectively. Event-free survival per vessel after 30 days was 91.0%, with two minor access-related complication. Fifty-five individual patients (105 vessels) were eligible for inclusion in the 1-year follow-up analysis. Of these patients, 19 (34 vessels) could be included in the 2-year follow-up analysis. No additional access site complications occurred at mid-term follow-up. No significant predictors of device failure were found. The percutaneous approach to EVAR appears to be a safe and effective option with high success rate and low complication rate in a real-world setting. Based on our findings, we conclude that the technique can safely be introduced in a vascular center.


Abdominal aortic aneurysm Endovascular aneurysm repair Vascular closure devices 



No financial supports, relationships, or conflict of interests to report.


  1. 1.
    Schermerhorn ML, Bensley RP, Giles KA, Hurks R, Oʼmalley AJ, Cotterill P, et al. Changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture and short term mortality 1995–2008. Ann Surg. 2012;256(4):651–8. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paravastu SC, Jayarajasingam R, Cottam R, Palfreyman SJ, Michaels JA, Thomas SM. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD004178.
  3. 3.
    Propper BW, Abularrage CJ. Long-term safety and efficacy of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2013;9:135–41. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maleux G, Koolen M, Heye S. Complications after endovascular aneurysm repair. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2009;26(1):3–9. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nelson PR, Kracjer Z, Kansal N, Rao V, Bianchi C, Hashemi H, 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 Surg. 2014;59(5):1181–93. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grenon SM, Gagnon J, Hsiang YN, Chen JC. Canadian experience with percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair: short-term outcomes. Can J Surg. 2009;52(5):E156–60.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tóth M, Maďarič J, Balázs T, Mikuláš J, Hladíková D, Bažík R, et al. Retrospective analysis of short-term and mid-term results of percutaneous endovascular repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. Rozhl Chir. 2013;92(12):715–21.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buck DB, Karthaus EG, Soden PA, Ultee KH, van Herwaarden JA, Moll FL, et al. Percutaneous versus femoral cutdown access for endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62(1):16–21. Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanneke P. F. X. Moonen
    • 1
  • Olivier H. J. Koning
    • 1
  • Ronald F. van den Haak
    • 1
  • Bart A. N. Verhoeven
    • 1
  • Jan Willem Hinnen
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Vascular SurgeryJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis‘s-HertogenboschThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations