A single center study of the efficacy and safety of Pro-Glide used for closure in thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with previous groin intervention

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridSAHIN, ANIL/0000-0003-1956-2348
dc.authoridaltunova, mehmet/0000-0001-5351-5022
dc.authorwosidSAHIN, ANIL/AFS-8068-2022
dc.authorwosidaltunova, mehmet/HNB-4927-2023
dc.contributor.authorGulmez, Recep
dc.contributor.authorAltunova, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorSahin, Ahmet Anil
dc.contributor.authorCelik, Omer
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-19T14:50:20Z
dc.date.available2024-05-19T14:50:20Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.departmentİstinye Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Pro-Glide, a suture-mediated vascular closure device, regarding technical success and complications in patients who had undergone aortic intervention and had previous groin intervention (PGI). Methods: One hundred and thirty-five patients who underwent percutaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair via the femoral artery and were closed with the Pro-Glide device were analyzed retrospectively. PGI was defined as a history of open surgical access to the femoral artery or wide sheath (>18 F) placement due to endovascular or valvular intervention. The patients were divided into two groups 38 cases with PGI and 97 cases without PGI. Results: The overall success rate of closure of the femoral artery with Pro-Glide was not statistically significant between the two groups (93.8% vs 92.1%, p = .711). Sheath sizes were compared between the groups and PGI (+) group had significantly higher sheath sizes compared to PGI (-) group (24.3 +/- 1.1 F vs 23.8 +/- 1.0 F, p = .011). Three patients in the PGI (+) group and six patients in the PGI (-) group experienced technical failure of the percutaneous femoral approach. Femoral complications were seen after the procedures in four patients in the PGI (+) group and four in the PGI (-) group. The PGI (+) group had a higher complication rate when compared to the PGI (-) group; however, this was not statistically significant (p = .181). Conclusion: The present study was conducted on a significantly larger sample compared to previous studies and the findings suggest that the Pro-Glide vascular closure device is a safe option for patients with a history of PGI and may not be considered as a contraindication.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/17085381241236560
dc.identifier.issn1708-5381
dc.identifier.issn1708-539X
dc.identifier.pmid38403595en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85186607093en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org10.1177/17085381241236560
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12713/5673
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001176350000001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSage Publications Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofVascularen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.snmz20240519_kaen_US
dc.subjectVascular Closure Devicesen_US
dc.subjectFemoral Scaren_US
dc.subjectThoracic Endovascular Aortic Repairen_US
dc.subjectPro-Glideen_US
dc.subjectPercloseen_US
dc.titleA single center study of the efficacy and safety of Pro-Glide used for closure in thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with previous groin interventionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu