Skip to main content
CVIR Endovascular
Download PDF
  • Original Article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Investigating the effects of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm on the lumen size of the common femoral artery

CVIR Endovascular volume 7, Article number: 66 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) is the definitive therapy of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysms worldwide. However, current literature regarding the anatomic changes in the common femoral artery (CFA) post-PEVAR is sparse and contradictory, and a significant proportion of these studies did not control for the potential confounding effects of ethnicity. Thus, this study aims to investigate the anatomical effects of PEVAR on the CFA using an Asian study cohort.

Methods

Between January 2019 and September 2023, the records of 113 patients who received PEVAR were reviewed. Groins with previous surgical interventions were excluded. The most proximate pre- and postoperative CT angiography of patients receiving PEVAR via the Perclose ProGlide™ Suture-Mediated Closure System were retrospectively analysed for changes in both the CFA inner luminal diameter (ID) and outer diameter (OD), the latter also encompassing the arterial walls. Access site complications within 3 months post-PEVAR were also recorded per patient.

Results

One hundred seventeen groins from 60 patients were included in this study, with 1 report of pseudoaneurysm. The CFA ID exhibited a 0.167 mm decrease (p-value = 0.0403), while the OD decreased by 0.247 mm (p-value = 0.0107). This trend persisted when the data was separately analysed with the common cardiovascular risk factors of diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia.

Conclusion

Our analysis demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in the CFA diameters post-PEVAR. However, the percentage changes were below established flow-limiting values, as reflected by the single access site complication reported. Hence, our findings give confidence in the safety profile of this procedure, even with the reported smaller baseline CFA lumen size in Asians. Moving forward, similar longer-term studies should be considered to characterise any late postoperative effects.

Graphical Abstract

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Over the past two decades, endovascular aneurysm repair has consistently demonstrated a favorable morbidity and recovery profile vis-à-vis open aneurysm resection [1,2,3]. Further improvements in the perioperative course, including reductions in operating time and length of stay, were facilitated by the introduction of percutaneous access (PEVAR), thereby solidifying the current role of PEVAR as the mainstay of AAA management [3,4,5,6,7]. One such platform is the widely utilised Preclose ProGlide™ system (Abbott Vascular, Green Oaks, Illinois, USA), a suture-mediated closure device that boasts an established safety and efficacy record even against its popular counterparts [7,8,9].

However, the utilisation of PEVAR does not guarantee the complete elimination of adverse perioperative outcomes [9,10,11]. This includes access-related groin complications, which the characteristically minimally invasive nature of PEVAR most directly addresses [12,13,14]. Previous studies have attributed this observation to the unchanged rates of pseudoaneurysms and potentially flow-limiting arterial thrombosis, both widely recognised as being among the more common iatrogenic vascular sequelae [10, 14, 15].

The effects of PEVAR on the diameter of the common femoral artery (CFA), the default PEVAR access site [13], have seen cyclic surges of interest from various groups as a direct indicator of procedural safety and, on a theoretical level, an anatomical basis for vascular access site sequelae. However, existing literature has been contradictory, albeit with more studies reporting no significant differences post-PEVAR [11, 16,17,18,19,20]. Additionally, attempts in correlating the anatomic findings to resultant acess site complications are inconsistent, and the number of studies that actively considered the potential confounding influence of ethnicity remains undesirably sparse, despite the recent finding of a smaller baseline CFA inner diameter (ID) among Asians compared to Caucasians [21].

Hence, this study aims to investigate the anatomical effects of PEVAR on an Asian population by measuring the resultant changes in both the CFA ID as well as the outer diameter (OD), the latter of which also includes the outer luminal wall [20]. The timeframe of this study will be limited to the short-term 3-month postoperative period, given the reported highest reintervention rates within this window compared to other timepoints post-PEVAR [22].

Materials and methods

Patient selection

This is an Institutional Review Board-approved study with waiver of informed consent. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from patients who received PEVAR for AAA between January 2019 and September 2023 at Singapore General Hospital. Patients who received PEVAR via a closure device other than the Preclose ProGlide™ system as well as those with an incomplete computed tomography (CT) angiography series were excluded. The latter exclusion criteria also included patients who received their first postoperative CT angiography more than 90 days post-PEVAR. Subsequent sample selection was conducted via a per-groin approach, with any prior history of groin interventions or access (including previous endarterectomies) as well as intraoperative conversion to femoral cutdown serving as the two exclusion criteria.

Demographic information of the final study cohort was extracted from our institution’s Electronic Medical Records and anonymised. The specific fields of interest were age, gender, active antiplatelet therapy, active anticoagulation therapy as well as the common comorbid cardiovascular risk factors of body mass index, smoking status, diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidaemia (HLD), ischaemic heart disease and peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

Groin complications were extracted from clinical notes in our institution’s Electronic Medical Records within 3 months post-PEVAR before being subjected to patient deidentification. Specifically, the complications of interest were clinically significant bleeding [23], clinically significant haematoma [24], pseudoaneurysm as well as lower limb ischaemia.

Preclose technique

Standard PEVAR via the preclose technique was performed for all patients. This involved an ultrasound-guided retrograde puncture of the CFA that was followed by the sequential deployment of Preclose ProGlide™ devices and the necessary sheaths, all of which were between 12 and 20F in calibre. Access site closure was then mediated via the extracorporeal sutures. A detailed description of PEVAR via the preclose technique has been described in previous studies [25,26,27].

Acquisition of the anatomical details of the CFA

CT scans obtained at the first postoperative visits were compared against the last available preoperative CT scans. Both scans were performed according to standard department protocols using either the Siemens SOMATOM Definition Flash (Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Bavaria, Germany) or the Canon Aquilion Prime (Canon Medical Systems Corporation, Otawara-shi, Tochigi, Japan) at 3 mm slice thickness. The CT angiography protocol involved injection of 70 to 80 ml of Omnipaque 350 (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) at 4 ml/s followed by a 30 ml saline washout at 4 ml/s. Quantitative assessment of the CFA was then performed on a per-groin basis by measuring the CFA ID and OD on Vue Motion (Carestream Health Inc, Rochester, New York, USA) with electronic calipers. This was performed using the abdomen window with a window level of 400 and window width of 50. To best capture the anatomical effects along the entire CFA, measurements were recorded at three discrete sites: 1) at the proximal CFA below the arterial origin at the inguinal ligament, 2) at the distal CFA immediately above the profunda bifurcation, and 3) along the central CFA tract, measured as the midpoint between points 1) and 2). The proximal and distal points of interest were correlated on the coronal images before the measurements were obtained from the axial images (Fig. 1). This was performed by a single medical student under the guidance of an experienced senior vascular surgical consultant.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Postoperative computed tomography series of a left common femoral artery illustrating the anatomical locations at which the diameters of the common femoral artery were recorded. A, B Respective axial and coronal images of the common femoral artery at the proximal origin below the inguinal ligament. C, D Respective axial and coronal images at the midpoint of the common femoral artery. E, F Respective axial and coronal images of the distal common femoral artery just proximal to the profunda bifurcation

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Measurements of the CFA diameters at the three anatomic locations were averaged per groin and checked for normality via the Shapiro–Wilk test. Subsequent analysis was conducted accordingly via paired t-tests and paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for datasets following normal and non-normal distributions respectively. All statistical analyses were performed with RStudio version 2023.12.1.402 (RStudio, Boston, Massachusetts, USA).

Results

Patient population

Between January 2019 and September 2023, a total of 113 patients received PEVAR for AAA at our institution. Of these patients, 36 were excluded, with the vast majority being due to incomplete CT series. Subsequent per-groin analysis resulted in the exclusion of 37 groins. As such, a total of 117 groins from 60 patients were included in this study. Figure 2 depicts the study cohort selection process, while the demographic characteristics of these patients are summarised in Table 1. On average, the postoperative CT scans were obtained at 39.2 ± 24.9 days post-PEVAR, while the preoperative CT scans were obtained at 52.0 ± 45.2 days pre-PEVAR. The single case of pseudoaneurysm constitutes the sole early access-site complication reported (Table 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flowchart illustrating the study cohort selection process

Full size image
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the study population
Full size table
Table 2 Reported early access site complications
Full size table

Changes in CFA diameters

Table 3 summarises the changes in both the CFA ID and OD at a cohort level. As the ID data was shown to follow a non-normal distribution (Table 4), this dataset was analysed via paired Wilcoxon sign-rank tests while the normally distributed OD data was analysed with paired t-tests. Our analysis revealed a statistically significant decrease when comparing the pre- and postoperative IDs (9.31 ± 1.73 mm and 9.18 ± 1.84 mm respectively, p-value = 0.0403) as well as ODs (11.03 ± 1.99 mm and 10.79 ± 1.99 mm respectively, p-value = 0.0107). Additionally, changes in both the CFA ID and OD were separately analysed with the specific cardiovascular risk factors (Tables 5 and 6 respectively). Of these, it was noted that the presence of DM and HLD were separately associated with statistically significant decreases in both the CFA ID and OD, while the presence of HTN and ischaemic heart disease were only associated with a statistically significant decrease in the CFA OD. Conversely, the absence of PAD was associated with statistically significant decreases in both the CFA ID and OD, as is seen among aspirin-naïve patients.

Table 3 Comparison of the pre- and postoperative common femoral artery diameters
Full size table
Table 4 Normality analysis of the change in the common femoral artery diameters post-PEVAR
Full size table
Table 5 Subgroup analysis of the pre- and postoperative changes in the inner diameter of the common femoral artery
Full size table
Table 6 Subgroup analysis of the pre- and postoperative changes in the outer diameter of the common femoral artery
Full size table

Discussion

Measuring the anatomical effects of PEVAR on the CFA provides a potential reference point to understand the factors governing adverse vascular outcomes post-PEVAR. However, existing literature has been sparse and contradictory. Hence, our study provides an analysis of the short-term anatomical effects of PEVAR on the CFA, specifically from an Asian study cohort.

Our analysis revealed a statistically significant decrease in the CFA ID post-PEVAR. Notably, this finding diverges from current literature, with all but one group reporting no significant difference (Dwivedi et al. is the sole exception with their study reporting a postoperative increase in the CFA ID) [16,17,18,19,20, 28]. Additionally, only three groups, namely Dwivedi et al., Lin et al. and Oğuzkurt et al., utilised CT angiography readings taken within the short-term postoperative period of 3 months post-PEVAR [17, 20, 28, 29], while only two groups, namely Ong et al. and Lin et al., controlled for ethnicity, which is a potential confounder given the reported smaller baseline CFA ID among Asians [19, 20, 21]. Regardless of the diversity in study cohorts, the reported postoperative access site complication rates did not surpass the current literature value of less than 3% [9, 10, 30]. With the postoperative access site complication rate in this study being congruent with these values, it may thus be suggested that our finding of a statistically significant decrease of 1.79% in the CFA ID did not translate into meaningful clinical impact on vascular health. Indeed, the ID is typically considered to have attained flow-limiting reduction upon reaching the literature threshold of 50%, while current definitions of interventional success allows for a remaining post-procedural ID reduction of up to 30% of the baseline [31, 32]. Unfortunately, the aforementioned studies utilising Asian study cohorts did not investigate postoperative complications [19, 20], and a longer study duration would be better positioned to illustrate the possible disconnect between statistical and clinical significance.

Additionally, it should be noted that the average preoperative CFA ID value from our Asian study cohort is instead more congruent with the literature trend among Caucasians [21, 33, 34]. While the classification of an “Asian” ethnicity necessarily implies significant inherent heterogeneity, our reported value also varies from the findings of previous studies that utilised data from within the same population, albeit spaced approximately a decade apart [19, 35, 36]. Given the complex multiethnic demography of Singapore, this discrepancy might have stemmed from a differential sampling of the various ethnicities (including the various subgroups of East Asians, South Asians and Southeast Asians, among others) in different proportions. Unfortunately, a subgroup ethnicity analysis was beyond the scope of this study. Moving forward, an observational study should be considered to investigate the average CFA ID value among Asians in the local setting, with special emphasis on subgroup analyses to control for Singapore’s multiethnic population.

Our findings regarding the statistically significant postoperative decrease in the CFA OD is also unexpected. As discussed by Lin et al., the only other group who also performed a similar investigation, recovery from PEVAR-induced iatrogenic arterial wall trauma should dominate the postoperative process, which would be reflected by a statistically significant increase in the CFA OD during the short-term perioperative period [20, 37, 38]. Indeed, this discrepancy in study outcomes could have stemmed from a difference in the data acquisition approach. Lin et al. acquired the CFA OD directly at the arterial puncture site, thus ensuring a theoretically accurate snapshot of the local inflammatory reaction secondary to the arterial puncture [20]. Conversely, our study methodology was designed to capture the change in the OD across the entire CFA. Thus, the results of both studies can be integrated together to suggest the safety of the PEVAR approach from a structural perspective, as the associated vascular injury is indeed highly localised and does not disrupt the overall property of the arterial wall, thereby allowing it to parallel the anatomic changes of the CFA ID.

Unlike previous studies, our analysis also investigated the impact of known cardiovascular risk factors on the changes in the CFA diameters post-PEVAR. Compared to the cohort-level analysis, our findings of an association between the various cardiovascular risk factors (namely DM, HTN and HLD) and a statistically significant decrease in CFA diameters is not unexpected. Indeed, they are a likely representation of the endothelial dysfunction and vasodilatory failure inherent in these conditions [39,40,41,42], thus reflecting the more prolonged recovery time required compared to their disease-free counterparts. Comparatively, the statistical significance among patients without PAD is likely a function of the other risk factors, given the inclusion of nearly the entire study cohort within this group. Moving forward, future studies investigating medium and long term effects of PEVAR on CFA diameters should also include a similar analysis to investigate the potential association between these risk factors and subsequent vascular sequelae.

However, the association between the absence of aspirin usage and a statistically significant decrease in CFA diameters is noteworthy. When juxtaposed against the contrary finding in patients with aspirin usage, this observation appears to suggest a protective anatomical effect of aspirin on the CFA. The molecular basis behind the anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet effects of aspirin has been extensively elucidated, and aspirin is still widely utilised for the prevention of cardiovascular disease progression and cerebrovascular events, among other vascular indications [43, 44]. However, patients typically undergo a washout period prior to PEVAR to manage the associated antiplatelet effects. Thus, this finding suggests a persistence of the anatomically beneficial effects of aspirin despite this washout period, although the absence of any clinically significant bleeding or haematoma reflects effective peri- and postoperative control of its antiplatelet effects. Indeed, a longer-term analysis focusing on postoperative outcomes would be better positioned to ascertain and discuss the potential clinical implications of this observation.

This study has several limitations. In addition to the aforementioned short-term focus of this study, the single-centre approach and retrospective nature of this study may have resulted in some inherent observational and selection bias. The exclusion of 32 patients from the initial cohort of 113 for incomplete CT angiography may also serve as an additional source of bias. Lastly, axial projections obtained during CT angiography do not always present a true perpendicular view of the CFA. However, this may be compensated by the comparative nature of the paired statistical tests utilised in this study.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in CFA diameters among an Asian study cohort during the short-term postoperative period post-PEVAR, with the cardiovascular risk factors of DM, HTN and HLD serving as individual contributing factors. However, the numerically marginal decrease, coupled with the minimal number of short-term access site complications reported, provides strong support for the safety profile of PEVAR. Moving forward, further studies should be considered to evaluate the persistence of our observations into the later postoperative periods.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are regulated by the local Personal Data Protection Act 2012 and are thus not publicly available.

Abbreviations

AAA:

Abdominal aortic aneurysm

CFA:

Common femoral artery

CT:

Computed tomography

DM:

Diabetes mellitus

ID:

Inner diameter

HLD:

Hyperlipidaemia

HTN:

Hypertension

PAD:

Peripheral arterial disease

PEVAR:

Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair

OD:

Outer diameter

References

  1. Anagnostakos J, Lal BK. Abdominal aortic aneurysms. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;65:34–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Golledge J. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: update on pathogenesis and medical treatments. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2019;16(4):225–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huff CM, Silver MJ, Ansel GM. Percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018;20(9):79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buck DB, Karthaus EG, Soden PA, Ultee KH, van Herwaarden JA, Moll FL, Schermerhorn ML. Percutaneous versus femoral cutdown access for endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62(1):16–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Petronelli S, Zurlo MT, Giambersio S, Danieli L, Occhipinti M. A single-centre experience of 200 consecutive unselected patients in percutaneous EVAR. Radiol Med. 2014;119(11):835–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McDonnell CO, Forlee MV, Dowdall JF, Colgan MP, Madhavan P, Shanik GD, Moore DJ. Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair leads to a reduction in wound complications. Ir J Med Sci. 2008;177(1):49–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nelson PR, Kracjer Z, Kansal N, Rao V, Bianchi C, Hashemi H, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial). J Vasc Surg. 2014;59(5):1181–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dosluoglu HH, Cherr GS, Harris LM, Dryjski ML. Total percutaneous endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using Perclose ProGlide closure devices. J Endovasc Ther. 2007;14(2):184–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bradley NA, Orawiec P, Bhat R, Pal S, Suttie SA, Flett MM, Guthrie GJK. Mid-term follow-up of percutaneous access for standard and complex EVAR using the ProGlide device. Surgeon. 2022;20(3):142–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Antoniou SA, Child E, Torella F, Antoniou GA. Percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vascular. 2016;24(6):638–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dwivedi K, Regi JM, Cleveland TJ, Turner D, Kusuma D, Thomas SM, Goode SD. Long-term evaluation of percutaneous groin access for EVAR. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42(1):28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jaffan AA, Prince EA, Hampson CO, Murphy TP. The preclose technique in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36(3):567–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tay S, Zaghloul MS, Shafqat M, Yang C, Desai KA, De Silva G, et al. Totally percutaneous endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Front Surg. 2022;9:1040929.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cao Z, Wu W, Zhao K, Zhao J, Yang Y, Jiang C, Zhu R. Safety and efficacy of totally percutaneous access compared with open femoral exposure for endovascular aneurysm repair: a meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2017;24(2):246–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nehler MR, Lawrence WA, Whitehill TA, Charette SD, Jones DN, Krupski WC. Iatrogenic vascular injuries from percutaneous vascular suturing devices. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33(5):943–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith ST, Timaran CH, Valentine RJ, Rosero EB, Clagett GP, Arko FR. Percutaneous access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: can selection criteria be expanded? Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23(5):621–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Oğuzkurt L, Gürel K, Eker E, Gür S, Özkan U, Gülcan Ö. Ultrasound-guided puncture of the femoral artery for total percutaneous aortic aneurysm repair. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012;18(1):92–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wolf YG, Tal R, Levi Y, Saltiel A, Dodkin R, Chaikov A, et al. FT22. Midterm access-related outcome after percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR). J Vasc Surg. 2016;63(6):25S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ong DY, Tan GWL, Chan MSL, Pua U. Common femoral artery caliber changes after percutaneous versus surgical access in endovascular aneurysm repair in the asian population. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;47:266–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin Y-Y, Shie R-F, Liu K-S, Yu S-Y, Su IH, Chen C-M, et al. Diameter change of common femoral arteries after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair with the use of the preclose technique. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(1):50–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Banzic I, Lu Q, Zhang L, Stepak H, Davidovic L, Oszkinis G, et al. Morphological differences in the aorto-iliac segment in aaa patients of caucasian and asian origin. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;51(6):783–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Columbo JA, Ramkumar N, Martinez-Camblor P, Kang R, Suckow BD, O’Malley AJ, et al. Five-year reintervention after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71(3):799-805.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemostat. 2005;3(4):692–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Essebag V, Verma A, Healey JS, Krahn AD, Kalfon E, Coutu B, et al. Clinically significant pocket hematoma increases long-term risk of device infection: BRUISE CONTROL INFECTION study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(11):1300–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee WA, Brown MP, Nelson PR, Huber TS, Seeger JM. Midterm outcomes of femoral arteries after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair using the Preclose technique. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47(5):919–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bechara CF, Barshes NR, Pisimisis G, Chen H, Pak T, Lin PH, Kougias P. Predicting the learning curve and failures of total percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(1):72–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Starnes BW, Andersen CA, Ronsivalle JA, Stockmaster NR, Mullenix PS, Statler JD. Totally percutaneous aortic aneurysm repair: experience and prudence. J Vasc Surg. 2006;43(2):270–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dwivedi K, Regi JM, Cleveland TJ, Turner D, Kusumawidjaja D, Thomas SM, Goode SD. Confirmation of no common femoral artery stenosis following percutaneous EVAR. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42(9):1369–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sakalihasan N, Michel JB, Katsargyris A, Kuivaniemi H, Defraigne JO, Nchimi A, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysms. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4(1):34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Moonen HPFX, Koning OHJ, van den Haak RF, Verhoeven BAN, Hinnen JW. Short-term outcome and mid-term access site complications of the percutaneous approach to endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) after introduction in a vascular teaching hospital. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2019;34(3):226–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zemaitis MR, Boll JM, Dreyer MA. Peripheral arterial disease. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing LLC. 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Baumann F, Ruch M, Willenberg T, Dick F, Do D-D, Keo H-H, et al. Endovascular treatment of common femoral artery obstructions. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53(4):1000–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sandgren T, Sonesson B, Ahlgren R, Länne T. The diameter of the common femoral artery in healthy human: influence of sex, age, and body size. J Vasc Surg. 1999;29(3):503–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ahn HY, Lee HJ, Lee HJ, Yang JH, Yi JS, Lee IW. Assessment of the optimal site of femoral artery puncture and angiographic anatomical study of the common femoral artery. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2014;56(2):91–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chiam PT, Koh AS, Ewe SH, Sin YK, Chao VT, Ng CK, et al. Iliofemoral anatomy among Asians: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(4):1373–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chan WK, Yong E, Hong Q, Zhang L, Lingam P, Tan GWL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm in Asian populations. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73(3):1069-74.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, Longaker MT. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008;453(7193):314–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Midwood KS, Williams LV, Schwarzbauer JE. Tissue repair and the dynamics of the extracellular matrix. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2004;36(6):1031–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kozakova M, Palombo C. Diabetes mellitus, arterial wall, and cardiovascular risk assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(2):201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Poznyak A, Grechko AV, Poggio P, Myasoedova VA, Alfieri V, Orekhov AN. The diabetes mellitus-atherosclerosis connection: the role of lipid and glucose metabolism and chronic inflammation. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(5):1835.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim JA, Montagnani M, Chandrasekran S, Quon MJ. Role of lipotoxicity in endothelial dysfunction. Heart Fail Clin. 2012;8(4):589–607.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Martinez-Quinones P, McCarthy CG, Watts SW, Klee NS, Komic A, Calmasini FB, et al. Hypertension induced morphological and physiological changes in cells of the arterial wall. Am J Hypertens. 2018;31(10):1067–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Handin RI. The history of antithrombotic therapy: the discovery of heparin, the vitamin k antagonists, and the utility of aspirin. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2016;30(5):987–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dzeshka MS, Shantsila A, Lip GY. Effects of aspirin on endothelial function and hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2016;18(11):83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Charyl Jia Qi Yap for her solid administrative support throughout this project, without which the imaging and clinical data would not be available for this study.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding bodies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

    Wilson Wei Xiang Ong

  2. Department of Vascular Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Hsien Ts’ung Tay & Tze Tec Chong

Authors
  1. Wilson Wei Xiang Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hsien Ts’ung Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tze Tec Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TTC conceptualised the study while HTT designed the methodology. Both authors contributed significantly in revising the manuscript. WWXO participated in methodology design and was responsible for the data acquisition and analysis, as well as for manuscript writing and visual abstract designing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wilson Wei Xiang Ong.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has been approved by the SingHealth Centralised Instructional Review Board with waiver of informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ong, W.W., Tay, H.T. & Chong, T.T. Investigating the effects of percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm on the lumen size of the common femoral artery. CVIR Endovasc 7, 66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-024-00476-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-024-00476-0

Keywords