Dataset Information

The Impact of Endograft Selection on Mid-Term Outcomes in Female Patients Following Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA).

ABSTRACT: Background Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are far more common in male than female gender, although they appear to have a more aggressive pathophysiology in females. Given the lower incidence of AAA in females, it has been difficult to assess the impact of graft selection for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in this cohort. Purpose To identify whether graft selection influences outcomes following AAA endoluminal repair in female patients. Methodology A retrospective analysis of published data for 711 female patients was conducted, collating data from three cohorts - Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global post-market registry (ENGAGE), Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) and U.S. Zenith multicenter trial in combination with the Zenith female registry. Patients were recruited into the ENGAGE registry between 2009 and 2011, the GREAT registry between August 2010 and October 2016, and into the Zenith registry between 2000 and 2003. Patients from ENGAGE received the Medtronic Endurant stent graft for infrarenal AAA repair, patients analysed in GREAT received the Gore Excluder stent graft and the Zenith group received the Cook Zenith stent graft. Analyses were performed to evaluate all-cause mortality, aorta-related mortality, endoleak occurrence and surgical reintervention rates between the three cohorts. Results Of the 711 females, 133 were from ENGAGE (mean age 76 years), 538 were from GREAT (mean age 75 years) and 40 were from Zenith (mean age 74 years). The rates of co-morbidities between the three groups were broadly similar except for atherosclerotic disease which was more commonly observed in those treated with the GORE Excluder. The rate of endoleaks was lower when the Excluder stent was utilised as compared to the other two stents (Excluder 6.7% vs. Zenith 12.5% vs. Endurant 35.3%) even considering the limited follow-up of the Zenith group to two years as compared to five years for both ENGAGE and GREAT. All-cause mortality was similar in all three groups across the period examined while aorta-related mortality was uncommon. Reintervention rate was 15% at two years following the utilisation of the Zenith aortic graft while the rate of intervention at five years was broadly similar between ENGAGE and GREAT. Conclusion The newer generation, lower profile aortic endografts appear to have provided a safe and successful tool in the management of AAA in female patients, despite more complex aortic anatomy with shorter infrarenal neck length and larger aortic neck angulation.

SUBMITTER: Barry IP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057124 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the treatment modality of choice in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. This has resulted in endograft utilization within instructions for use (IFU) and in cases with proximal neck anatomy outside of IFU. Purpose To identify whether graft selection influences outcomes following EVAR outside of IFU. Methodology A retrospective analysis was conducted from previously published data for 636 patients, collated from the Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global Post-Market Registry (ENGAGE) and the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT). Patients were recruited into the ENGAGE registry between 2009 and 2011 and into the GREAT registry between August 2010 and October 2016. In ENGAGE, they received the Medtronic Endurant stent graft (Medtronic Vascular Inc, Dublin, Ireland) for infrarenal AAA repair while patients analyzed in GREAT received the Gore Excluder stent-graft (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Arizona). Analyses were performed to evaluate all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, endoleak occurrence, and surgical reintervention rates between the two cohorts. Results Of the 636 patients, 225 were from ENGAGE (mean age 73 years) and 411 were from GREAT (mean age 75 years). 17.8% were treated outside of IFU in the ENGAGE registry, while 12.4% were treated outside IFU in the GREAT cohort. Five-year freedom from all-cause mortality was similar in both cohorts (65.6% vs. 63.8%). The rate of type IA endoleak development was lower in the Excluder cohort, although this may have been impacted by the fact that only endoleaks that underwent reintervention were recorded within GREAT analysis (Endurant 10.6% vs. Excluder 7.0%). The reintervention rate was 16% at five years following the Endurant aortic graft while it was 13.3% at five years with the Excluder. Conclusion Treatment outside of IFU, be it with a suprarenal or an infrarenal fixation device, is associated with worse outcomes. This analysis reinforces the importance of the consideration of either fenestrated or open repair in those aneurysms that fail to satisfy IFU while endovascular repair in such a setting should be reserved as a last resort strategy.

Project description:BackgroundAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has been performed by various surgical specialties for many years. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) may be a disruptive technology, having an impact on which specialties care for patients with AAA. Therefore, we examined the proportion of AAA repairs performed by various specialties over time in the United States and evaluated the impact of the introduction of EVAR.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2001-2009) was queried for intact and ruptured AAA and for open repair and EVAR. Specific procedures were used to identify vascular surgeons (VSs), cardiac surgeons (CSs), and general surgeons (GSs) as well as interventional cardiologists and interventional radiologists for states that reported unique treating physician identifiers. Annual procedure volumes were subsequently calculated for each specialty.ResultsWe identified 108,587 EVARs and 85,080 open AAA repairs (3011 EVARs and 12,811 open repairs for ruptured AAA). VSs performed an increasing proportion of AAA repairs during the study period (52% in 2001 to 66% in 2009; P < .001). GSs and CSs performed fewer repairs during the same period (25% to 17% [P < .001] and 19% to 13% [P < .001], respectively). EVAR was increasingly used for intact (33% to 78% of annual cases; P < .001) as well as ruptured AAA repair (5% to 28%; P < .001). The proportion of intact open repairs performed by VSs increased from 52% to 65% (P < .001), whereas for EVAR, the proportion went from 60% to 67% (P < .001). The proportion performed by VSs increased for ruptured open repairs from 37% to 53% (P < .001) and for ruptured EVARs from 28% to 73% (P < .001). Compared with treatment by VSs, treatment by a CS (0.55 [0.53-0.56]) and GS (0.66 [0.64-0.68]) was associated with a decreased likelihood of undergoing endovascular rather than open AAA repair.ConclusionsVSs are performing an increasing majority of AAA repairs, in large part driven by the increased utilization of EVAR for both intact and ruptured AAA repair. However, GSs and CSs still perform AAA repair. Further studies should examine the implications of these national trends on the outcome of AAA repair.

Dataset Information

The Impact of Endograft Selection on Mid-Term Outcomes in Female Patients Following Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure