Gary W Lemmon1, Rahgu L Motaganahalli2, Tiffany Chang3, James Slaven4, Ben Aumiller2, Bradford J Kim3, Michael C Dalsing2. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Ind. Electronic address: gwlemmon@iupui.edu. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Ind. 3. Department of General Surgery, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Ind. 4. Department of Biostatics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Type III (T-III) endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain a major concern. Our center experienced a recent concentration of T-III endoleaks requiring elective and emergency treatment and prompted our review of all EVAR implants over a 40-month period from April 2011 until August 2014. This report represents a single center experience with T-III endoleak management with analysis of factors leading to the T-III-related failure of EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective review of all the operative reports, medical records, and computed tomography scans were reviewed from practice surveillance. Using Society for Vascular Surgery aneurysm reporting standards, we analyzed the morphology of the aneurysms before and after EVAR implant using computed tomography. Index procedure and frequency of reinterventions required to maintain aneurysm freedom from rupture were compared across all devices using SAS v 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). Major adverse events (MAEs) requiring secondary interventions for aneurysm treatment beyond primary implant were analyzed for methods of failure. Aneurysm morphology of patients requiring EVAR was compared across all endograft devices used for repair. For purposes of MAE analysis, patients receiving Endologix (ELX) endograft were combined into group 1; Gore, Cook, and Medtronic endograft patients were placed into group 2. RESULTS: Overall, technical success and discharge survival were achieved in 97.3% and 98% of patients regardless of device usage. There was no significant device related difference identified between patient survival or freedom from intervention. MAEs involving aneurysm treatment were over seven-fold more frequent with ELX (group 1) vs non-ELX (group 2) endografts (P < .01). Group 1 patients with aneurysm diameters larger than 65 mm were associated with a highly significant value for development of a T-III endoleak (odds ratio, 11.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.17, 57.27; P = .0038). CONCLUSIONS: While EVAR technical success and survival were similar across all devices, ELX devices exhibited an unusually high incidence of T-III endoleaks when implanted in abdominal aortic aneurysms with a diameter of more than 65 mm. Frequent reinterventions were required for Endologix devices for prevention of aneurysm rupture due to T-III endoleaks.
OBJECTIVE: Type III (T-III) endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain a major concern. Our center experienced a recent concentration of T-III endoleaks requiring elective and emergency treatment and prompted our review of all EVAR implants over a 40-month period from April 2011 until August 2014. This report represents a single center experience with T-III endoleak management with analysis of factors leading to the T-III-related failure of EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective review of all the operative reports, medical records, and computed tomography scans were reviewed from practice surveillance. Using Society for Vascular Surgery aneurysm reporting standards, we analyzed the morphology of the aneurysms before and after EVAR implant using computed tomography. Index procedure and frequency of reinterventions required to maintain aneurysm freedom from rupture were compared across all devices using SAS v 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). Major adverse events (MAEs) requiring secondary interventions for aneurysm treatment beyond primary implant were analyzed for methods of failure. Aneurysm morphology of patients requiring EVAR was compared across all endograft devices used for repair. For purposes of MAE analysis, patients receiving Endologix (ELX) endograft were combined into group 1; Gore, Cook, and Medtronic endograft patients were placed into group 2. RESULTS: Overall, technical success and discharge survival were achieved in 97.3% and 98% of patients regardless of device usage. There was no significant device related difference identified between patient survival or freedom from intervention. MAEs involving aneurysm treatment were over seven-fold more frequent with ELX (group 1) vs non-ELX (group 2) endografts (P < .01). Group 1 patients with aneurysm diameters larger than 65 mm were associated with a highly significant value for development of a T-III endoleak (odds ratio, 11.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.17, 57.27; P = .0038). CONCLUSIONS: While EVAR technical success and survival were similar across all devices, ELX devices exhibited an unusually high incidence of T-III endoleaks when implanted in abdominal aortic aneurysms with a diameter of more than 65 mm. Frequent reinterventions were required for Endologix devices for prevention of aneurysm rupture due to T-III endoleaks.
Authors: Raymond Vetsch; Harvey E Garrett; Christopher L Stout; Alan R Wladis; Matt Thompson; Joseph V Lombardi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 3.240