oru.sePublikationer
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Editor's choice: a randomized controlled trial of the fascia suture technique compared with a suture-mediated closure device for femoral arterial closure after endovascular aortic repair
Orebro University Hospital. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery.
Department of Vascular Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden .
Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Vascular Surgery, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.
Department of Radiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden .
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, ISSN 1078-5884, E-ISSN 1532-2165, Vol. 49, no 2, 166-173 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives: The aim was to investigate whether the fascia suture technique (FST) can reduce access closure time and procedural costs compared with the Prostar technique (Prostar) in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair and to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes of both techniques.

Methods: In this two center trial, 100 patients were randomized to access closure by either FST or Prostar between June 2006 and December 2009. The primary endpoint was access closure time. Secondary outcome measures included access related costs and evaluation of the short- and mid-term complications. Evaluation was performed pen- and post-operatively, at discharge, at 30 days and at 6 months follow up.

Results: The median access closure time was 12.4 minutes for FST and 19.9 minutes for Prostar (p < .001). Prostar required a 54% greater procedure time than FST, mean ratio 1.54 (95% Cl 1.25-1.90, p < .001) according to regression analysis. Adjusted for operator experience the mean ratio was 1.30 (95% Cl 1.09-1.55, p = .005) and for patient body mass index 1.59 (95% Cl 1.28-1.96, p < .001). The technical failure rate for operators at proficiency level was 5% (2/40) compared with 28% (17/59) for those at the basic level (p = .003). The proficiency level group had a technical failure rate of 4% (1/26) for FST and 7% (1/14) for Prostar, p = 1.00, while corresponding rates for the basic level group were 27% (6/22) for FST and 30% (11/37) for Prostar (p = .84). There was a significant difference in cost in favor. of FST, with a median difference of (sic)800 (95% Cl 710-927, p < .001).

Conclusions: In aortic endovascular repair FST is a faster and cheaper technique than the Prostar technique.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
W.B. Saunders Ltd , 2015. Vol. 49, no 2, 166-173 p.
Keyword [en]
Endovascular aneurysm repair, Randomized controlled trial, Cost analysis, Procedure time, Fascia suture, Percutaneous closure
National Category
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems Surgery
Research subject
Cardiology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-44115DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.10.021ISI: 000350526400012PubMedID: 25549577Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84922331265OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-44115DiVA: diva2:801080
Available from: 2015-04-08 Created: 2015-04-08 Last updated: 2017-03-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Larzon, Thomas
By organisation
Orebro University Hospital
In the same journal
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Cardiac and Cardiovascular SystemsSurgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 14 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf