A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 143

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 994
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3134
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Alternative access techniques with thoracic endovascular aortic repair, open iliac conduit versus endoconduit technique. | LitMetric

Background: Iliac artery endoconduits (ECs) have emerged as important alternatives to retroperitoneal open iliac conduits (ROICs) to aid in transfemoral delivery for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We present, to our knowledge, the first comparative analysis between these alternative approaches.

Methods: All patients undergoing TEVAR with either ROIC (n = 23) or internal EC (n = 16) were identified. The mean age of the cohort was 72.4 ± 11.5 years (82.1% female). Device delivery was accomplished in 100% of cases. The primary outcome was the presence of iliofemoral complications, which was defined as: (1) the inability to successfully deliver the device into the aorta via the ROIC or EC approach; (2) rupture, dissection, or thrombosis of the ipsilateral iliac or femoral artery; and/or (3) retroperitoneal hematoma requiring exploration and evacuation. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and rates of limb loss, claudication, or revascularization.

Results: At a median follow-up of 10.1 months, the incidence of iliofemoral complications was less for the EC approach compared with the ROIC technique (12.5% vs 26.1%; P = .301). No patients sustained limb loss. Revascularization was performed in two patients after ROIC. Lower extremity claudication occurred in one patient after EC. Early mortality was seen in one patient who underwent EC. Two-year Kaplan-Meier survival for the entire cohort was 74.4%, and did not differ between groups (ROIC, 78.3% vs EC, 68.8%; P = .350). Two-year Kaplan-Meier freedom from limb loss, claudication, or revascularization did not differ between the two approaches (ROIC, 91.3% vs EC, 93.8%; P = .961).

Conclusions: Results of this early comparative evaluation of alternative access routes for TEVAR suggest that an EC approach is safe, effective, and associated with low rates of early mortality and late iliofemoral complications. In selected patients, the EC may be considered an appropriate delivery route for transfemoral TEVAR.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2014.05.006DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

iliofemoral complications
12
limb loss
12
alternative access
8
thoracic endovascular
8
endovascular aortic
8
aortic repair
8
open iliac
8
loss claudication
8
early mortality
8
two-year kaplan-meier
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!