↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of Percutaneous femoral access in Endovascular Repair versus Open femoral access (PiERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0911-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bastiaan P. Vierhout, Ben R. Saleem, Alewijn Ott, Jan Maarten van Dijl, Ties D. van Andringa de Kempenaer, Maurice E. N. Pierie, Jan T. Bottema, Clark J. Zeebregts

Abstract

Access for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is obtained through surgical cutdown or percutaneously. The only devices suitable for percutaneous closure of the 20 French arteriotomies of the common femoral artery (CFA) are the Prostar™ and Proglide™ devices (Abbott Vascular). Positive effects of these devices seem to consist of a lower infection rate, and shorter operation time and hospital stay. This conclusion was published in previous reports comparing techniques in patients in two different groups (cohort or randomized). Access techniques were never compared in one and the same patient; this research simplifies comparison because patient characteristics will be similar in both groups. Percutaneous access of the CFA is compared to surgical cutdown in a single patient; in EVAR surgery, access is necessary in both groins in each patient. Randomization is performed on the introduction site of the larger main device of the endoprosthesis. The contralateral device of the endoprosthesis is smaller. When we use this type of randomization, both groups will contain a similar number of main and contralateral devices. Preoperative nose cultures and perineal cultures are obtained, to compare colonization with postoperative wound cultures (in case of a surgical site infection). Furthermore, patient comfort will be considered, using VAS-scores (Visual analog scale). Punch biopsies of the groin will be harvested to retrospectively compare skin of patients who suffered a surgical site infection (SSI) to patients who did not have an SSI. The PiERO trial is a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial designed to show the consequences of using percutaneous access in EVAR surgery and focuses on the occurrence of surgical site infections. NTR4257 10 November 2013, NL44578.042.13.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 15%
Other 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 22 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 26 43%