Literature DB >> 16703207

Barriers to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: past experience and implications for future device development.

Mireille A Moise1, Edward Y Woo, Omaida C Velazquez, Ronald M Fairman, Michael A Golden, Marc E Mitchell, Jeffrey P Carpenter.   

Abstract

Despite improvements in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) devices and techniques, significant anatomic constraints still preclude successful EVAR in a large number of patients. The authors sought to identify the current barriers to EVAR and examine their evolution over time. Patients were evaluated for potential endovascular repair by computed tomography angiography (CTA) with or without supplemental conventional arteriograms. The patient population was separated into 2 groups (A and B) based on early and late time periods in the experience with EVAR, corresponding to the availability of various devices. Group A (early) consisted of the Guidant Ancure, Medtronic Talent, and AneuRx devices and comprised patients presenting between April 1997 through June 2000. Group B (late) consisted of the Medtronic AneuRx, Cook Zenith, Edwards Lifepath, Gore Excluder, and Endologix PowerLink devices and comprised patients presenting between July 2000 and December 2003. Patient demographics and anatomic reasons for rejection were recorded in a database for statistical analysis. In total, 547 patients were evaluated (463 men, 84 women). Of these, 346 patients (63%; 312 men, 34 women) were deemed suitable candidates for EVAR and 201 (37%; 151 men, 50 women) were rejected. There was no significant difference in the overall rate of rejection in the early vs the late time period (34% A, 41% B, p = 0.08), but the number of exclusion criteria per patient decreased over time; patients rejected for EVAR had an overall average of 1.6 exclusion criteria (Group A, 1.9; Group B, 1.2). The reasons for rejection did significantly change over time. Specifically, rejection on the basis of inadequate arterial access, presence of extensive iliac artery aneurysms, or an inadequate proximal neck decreased. A disproportionate number of women were excluded throughout the study: Group A, 56% of women compared to 30% of men (p = 0.0003); Group B, 63% of women compared to 36% of men (p = 0.0022). Women were more likely than men to have inadequate arterial access routes. In addition, patients with high operative risk were also more likely to be excluded from EVAR, a finding that persisted over time. Anatomic constraints continue to pose significant challenges to aortic endografting. Progress has been made in that technological advances have conquered some of the previous anatomic challenges, chiefly those of arterial access and treatment of concomitant iliac aneurysm disease. However, the overall rate of rejection for EVAR remains the same. The chief anatomic barriers continue to be the difficult aortic neck and management of branched vascular segments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16703207     DOI: 10.1177/153857440604000304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vasc Endovascular Surg        ISSN: 1538-5744            Impact factor:   1.089


  12 in total

1.  Endovascular repair of aortic disease: a venture capital perspective.

Authors:  Lucas W Buchanan; S William Stavropoulos; Joshua B Resnick; Jeffrey Solomon
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.513

2.  Devices used for endovascular aneurysm repair: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Benjamin M Jackson; Jeffrey P Carpenter
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 3.  In situ fenestration for branch vessel preservation during EVAR.

Authors:  Jean Bismuth; Cassidy Duran; Heitham T Hassoun
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec

4.  Unique operative approach for dealing with a tortuous external iliac artery during abdominal aortic aneurysm endografting.

Authors:  Randall W Franz
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2009

5.  Endovascular aneurysm repair with the Ovation TriVascular Stent Graft System utilizing a predominantly percutaneous approach under local anaesthesia.

Authors:  C V Ioannou; N Kontopodis; E Kehagias; A Papaioannou; A Kafetzakis; G Papadopoulos; D Pantidis; D Tsetis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  [Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular repair with stent grafts].

Authors:  M Wagner; G Voshage; T Busch; P Landwehr
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Anatomic eligibility for endovascular aneurysm repair preserved over 2 years of surveillance.

Authors:  Annalise M Panthofer; Sydney L Olson; Brooks L Rademacher; Jennifer K Grudzinski; Elliot L Chaikof; Jon S Matsumura
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 4.268

8.  Changes in suprarenal and infrarenal aortic angles after endovascular aneurysm repair.

Authors:  Ho Kyun Lee; Sang Young Chung; Jea Kyu Kim; Sung Hee Yoo; Soo Jin Na Choi
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 1.859

Review 9.  Effects of study design and trends for EVAR versus OSR.

Authors:  Robert Hopkins; James Bowen; Kaitryn Campbell; Gord Blackhouse; Guy De Rose; Teresa Novick; Daria O'Reilly; Ron Goeree; Jean-Eric Tarride
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2008

10.  Limited feasibility in endovascular aneurysm repair using currently available graft in Korea.

Authors:  Taeseok Bae; Taeseung Lee; In Mok Jung; Jongwon Ha; Jung Kee Chung; Sang Joon Kim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.