The Impact of the Proctor Assistance for a Safe Learning Curve in the Development of a Complex Aortic Endovascular
Ryan Gouveia E Melo1,2,3,4, Ruy Fernandes E Fernandes1,2,3,4, Margarida Salvado2
1Department of Vascular Surgery, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal.
Introduction:
Initiating an endovascular aortic program for treatment of complex aortic aneurysms with fenestrated and branched grafts (FB-EVAR) is challenging. Using a Proctor is one option for training and development of the team. However, this approach has not been formally analyzed. The aim of this study was to analyze the learning curve and the effect of the Proctor regarding safety and effectiveness in FB-EVAR.
Methods:
A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed, including all consecutive elective patients submitted to FB-EVAR (including both thoraco-abdominal-TAAA and complex abdominal aortic aneurysms-C-AAA) from 2013 to 2021. Patients were divided into 2 groups, the first operated with the Proctor present and the second without. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality (safety) and technical and procedure success (efficacy). Secondary outcomes included treatment performance (procedure time, blood loss, contrast, and radiation use), re-interventions, aneurysm shrinking, target vessel patency, 30-day mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and overall mortality.
Results:
Overall, 105 patients were included in the study, 35 operated with Proctor and 70 operated without. The first 20 patients were operated always with the Proctor, and the remaining were operated with the Proctor selectively. Mean age was 71.8 (±7.3) years and 95 patients were male (90.5%). Overall, 62 (65%) patients had C-AAA or extent IV TAAAs and 43 (35%) had extensive TAAAs. There were no significant differences regarding 30-day mortality (Log Rank=0.99), technical success (p=0.4), or procedure success (p=0.8). Mean surgical time was longer in the non-Proctor group (p=0.005), as well as significant intra-operative blood loss (p=0.042). Contrast use (p=0.5) and radiation (p=0.53) were non-significantly different between groups. There were no significant differences regarding length of stay (p=0.4), major adverse events (p=0.6), target vessel patency (Log Rank=0.97), early (p=0.7) and late endoleaks (0.7), aneurysm shrinking (p=0.6), re-interventions (p=0.2), and overall mortality (Log Rank=0.87).
Conclusion:
In our experience, the use of a Proctor to start and accompany our complex endovascular aortic program for FB-EVAR was both safe and effective and may serve as a template by other countries and centers that aim to developing their programs.
