English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Introduction. Usage of the Perclose ProGlide® (PP: Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) closure device is becoming increasingly prevalent during percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The respective conditions treated via these procedures, abdominal aortic aneurysm and aortic valve stenosis, share risk factors but are two different physiopathological problems. Aim. Our aim was to compare the complication and success rates of PP closure device use in patients undergoing EVAR and TAVI. Materials and Methods. A total of 74 patients, including 58 undergoing TAVI and 16 undergoing EVAR, were analysed in our study. Results. Of the TAVI patients treated using the PP closure device, two (3.4%) had access to site-related bleeding complications and two (3.4%) experienced device failure. Of the EVAR patients who received the PP closure device, three (18.8%) had bleeding complications and three (18.8%) experienced device failure. Conclusion. Due to the underlying diffuse aortic wall pathology, the success rate of PP closure device use was lower and the complication rate of PP closure device was higher in the EVAR group versus the TAVI group.

Comparison of Complication and Success Rates of ProGlide Closure Device in Patients Undergoing TAVI and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair