Single-Center Experience on the Elective Hybrid Combination of Single Perclose + Angio-Seal VIP 8F Compared With Standard Dual Perclose During Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Purpose: This single-center study aimed to assess patients who underwent intentional percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (pEVAR) with Hybrid Technique combining a single Perclose (Abbott, Abbott Park, Illinois) Suture-Mediated Closure Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) and compare outcomes with the standard Dual Perclose technique. Materials and Methods: Consecutive elective pEVAR patients treated from November 2022 to November 2023, with healthy femoral accesses and introducer sheaths ≤20 French (F) outer diameter, were included. Coin-toss randomization determined whether a combination of single Perclose Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F (Hybrid Technique) or the standard double Perclose Devices (Dual Perclose) was used. In Hybrid Technique, a single Perclose device was positioned at 12 o'clock; a single Angio-Seal VIP 8F was placed after sheaths removal. Dual Perclose followed standard procedure. Primary endpoints included immediate hemostasis, sheath diameter differences, access conversion rate, technical success, and cost analysis. Results: The study involved 60 pEVAR patients (median age=78, interquartile range [IQR]=72-85 years) within the inclusion criteria. In 14 (24%) cases, only 1 femoral access was studied. There were 106 pEVAR accesses, with 58 (54.7%) in the Hybrid Technique group and 48 (45.3%) in the Dual Perclose group. Both groups exhibited homogeneity in pre-operative characteristics and sheath diameter (Hybrid Technique-16F vs Dual Perclose-18F; p=0.202). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the Hybrid Technique group vs 87.5% for the Dual Perclose group (p=0.006). Surgical access conversion was unnecessary. Technical success was 100%, with all 6 femoral bleeding cases after Dual Perclose resolved endovascularly, using additional devices. Cost analysis showed a median cost of 330 euros (IQR=0) for the Hybrid Technique group vs 384 euros (IQR=360-456) for the Dual Perclose group (p<0.001). Thirty-day mortality was 3%, in 2 fragile patients, without access-related complications. Multivariate analysis identified Dual Perclose access (odds ratio [OR]=35.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]=18.3-36.8; p<0.001) and obesity (OR=19.7; 95% CI=1.4-23.9.5; p<0.001) as independent risk factors for immediate hemostasis failure. Median follow-up was 134 days (IQR=41-227), with 1 Hybrid Technique case (2%) successfully treated with thrombin injection for a small femoral pseudoaneurysm after 62 days. Conclusions: The elective Hybrid Technique with combination of single Perclose Device + single Angio-Seal VIP 8F during pEVAR in selected patients appears to be non-inferior to the standard Dual Perclose procedure. It demonstrates a positive trend in reducing immediate hemostasis failure and costs. Both procedures achieved technical success and avoiding surgical access conversions.