Percutaneous versus Cutdown Access for Endovascular Aortic Repair

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the percutaneous femoral access and open surgical cutdown access approaches in patients undergoing thoracic/abdominal endovascular aortic repair. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 59 patients who underwent a thoracic/abdominal endovascular aortic repair at a single tertiary care hospital between 2015 and 2022. Based on their femoral access type, the patients were categorized into the “percutaneous” or “cutdown” groups. Using a computerized sheet, relevant patient data (including demographic information and patient risk factors) were collected. The operative duration, complication rates, mortality rates, intensive care unit admission and stay durations, and total hospital stay were compared between the two groups. The primary outcomes were differences in the postoperative morbidity and mortality associated with the two approaches. Results: The cutdown and percutaneous groups comprised 24 (41%) and 35 (59%) patients, respectively. The two groups displayed comparable demographic and clinical characteristics (p > 0.05). However, the vascular anatomy differed with the common femoral artery diameter being larger in the percutaneous group compared to the cutdown group (9.63 ± 1.81 mm vs. 8.49 ± 1.54 mm, p = 0.028). The ratio of the sheath diameter to the common femoral artery diameter was significantly lower in the percutaneous group than in the cutdown group (0.73 ± 0.16 vs. 0.85 ± 0.20, p = 0.027). A ratio of ≥0.74 was associated with a higher risk of complications (odds ratio, 12.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.4–102.2; p = 0.023) and mortality (odds ratio, 5.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–29.6; p = 0.035). Additionally, the operative duration was significantly shorter in the percutaneous group than in the cutdown group (141.43 ± 97.05 min vs. 218.46 ± 126.31 min, p = 0.001). Compared to the cutdown group, the percutaneous group experienced a shorter total hospital stay (21.54 ± 21.49 days vs. 11.60 ± 12.09 days, p = 0.022) and lower intensive care unit-admission rates (66.7% vs. 40%, p = 0.044). Conclusion: The percutaneous approach is a viable and more time-efficient alternative to the traditional cutdown method for delivering vascular endografts. It is associated with a significantly shorter operative duration and briefer hospital stays. Additionally, the ratio of the sheath diameter to the common femoral artery diameter can help surgeons preoperatively predict and anticipate the risks of complications and mortality. Future in-depth research is necessary to better understand the association between this ratio and postoperative outcomes and complications.