Advertisement

Comparison of outcomes for major contemporary endograft devices used for endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms

Published:November 02, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.11.005
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare rates of mortality, rupture and secondary intervention following endovascular repair (EVAR) of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) using contemporary endograft devices from three major manufacturers.

      Design

      Retrospective cohort study using linked clinical registry (Australasian Vascular Audit) and all payer administrative data.

      Methods

      We identified patients undergoing EVAR for intact AAA between 2010-2019 in New South Wales, Australia. We compared rates of all-cause mortality, secondary rupture and secondary intervention (subsequent aneurysm repair; other secondary aortic intervention) for patients treated with Cook, Medtronic and Gore standard devices. We used inverse probability of treatment weighted proportional hazards and competing risk regression to adjust for patient, clinical and aneurysm characteristics, using Cook as the referent device.

      Results

      We identified 2,874 eligible EVAR patients, with a median follow-up of 4.1 (maximum 9.5) years. Mortality rates were similar for patients receiving different devices (ranging between 7.0-7.3 per 100 person-years). There was no significant difference between devices in secondary rupture rates, which ranged between 0.4-0.5 per 100 person-years. Patients receiving Medtronic and Gore devices tended to have higher crude rates of subsequent aneurysm repair (1.5 per 100 person-years) than patients receiving Cook devices (0.8 per 100 person-years). This finding remained in the adjusted analysis, but was only statistically significant for Medtronic devices (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02-2.47; HR 1.73, 95% CI 0.94-3.18 respectively).

      Conclusion

      Major endograft devices have similar overall long-term safety profiles. However, there may be differences in rates of secondary intervention for some devices. This may reflect endograft durability, or patient selection for different devices based on aneurysm anatomy. Continuous comparative assessments are needed to guide evidence for treatment decisions across the range of available devices.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect