Ultrasound-guided percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair success is predicted by access vessel diameter

Objective Ultrasound scan-guided access allows for direct visualization of the access artery during percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. We hypothesized that the use of ultrasound scan guidance allowed us to safely increase the utilization of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair to almost all patients and decrease access complications. Methods A retrospective chart review of all elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs, both abdominal and descending thoracic, from 2005 to 2010 was performed. Patients were identified using International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification Codes and stratified based on access type: percutaneous vs cut-down. We examined the success rate of percutaneous access and the cause of failure. Sheath size was large (18-24F) or small (12-16F). Minimum access vessel diameter was also measured. Outcomes were wound complications (infections or clinically significant hematomas that delayed discharge or required transfusion), operative and incision time, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Predictors of percutaneous failure were identified. Results One hundred sixty-eight patients (296 arteries) had percutaneous access endovascular aneurysm repair (P-EVAR) whereas 131 patients (226 arteries) had femoral cutdown access EVAR. Ultrasound scan-guided access was introduced in 2007. P-EVAR increased from zero cases in 2005 to 92.3% of all elective cases in 2010. The success rate with percutaneous access was 96%. Failures requiring open surgical repair of the artery included seven for hemorrhage and six for flow-limiting stenosis or occlusion of the femoral artery. P-EVAR had fewer wound complications (0.7% vs 7.4%; P = .001), shorter operative time (153.3 vs 201.5 minutes; P < .001), and larger minimal access vessel diameter (6.7 mm vs 6.1 mm; P < .01). Patients with failed percutaneous access had smaller minimal access vessel diameters when compared to successful P-EVAR (4.9 mm vs 6.8 mm; P < .001). More failures occurred in small sheaths than large ones (7.4% vs 1.9%; P = .02). Access vessel diameter