Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Vasc Surg. 2016 May;63(5):1208-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.11.035. Epub 2016 Jan 24.

Standard off-the-shelf versus custom-made multibranched thoracoabdominal aortic stent grafts.

Author information

1
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif. Electronic address: charlene.fernandez@ucsf.edu.
2
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The complex aortic branch anatomy in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) and pararenal aortic aneurysms (PRAAs) presents a challenge for endovascular repair. The multibranched endovascular device has durable midterm results with use of a custom branch stent graft (CSG) configuration. The midterm results with use of the standard branch stent graft (SSG) configuration are unknown, but it has the advantage of off-the-shelf technology. The goal of this study was to compare the midterm outcomes of CSG and SSG multibranched endovascular devices.

METHODS:

From July 2005 to September 2014, 133 patients underwent elective endovascular repair of TAAA and PRAA in a prospective trial. Beginning in December 2008, SSGs were used in those with suitable anatomy.

RESULTS:

Fifty patients (mean age, 71 ± 7 years; 11 women [22%]) were treated using SSGs, and 83 patients (mean age, 74 ± 9 years; 22 women [26.5%]) underwent repair using CSGs. The SSG and CSG groups were similar with regard to aneurysm size, aneurysm extent, and medical comorbidities, with the sole exception of lung disease, which was more common in the SSG group. All stent grafts were deployed as intended, with no conversions to open repair. Mean ± standard deviation follow-up (days) was 694 ± 525 for the SSG group and 942 ± 764 for the CSG group (P = .045). There were no significant differences in aneurysm-related death, renal failure requiring dialysis, stroke, endoleak, visceral or renal branch occlusion, lower extremity weakness, or reintervention (P > .05 for each). The volume of contrast material was significantly lower in those with SSGs compared with CSGs (P = .016), but there were no significant differences in operative or fluoroscopy times. Time to treatment (days from consent to surgery) was significantly lower in SSG patients compared with CSG patients (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS:

For patients with suitable anatomy, the use of SSGs for TAAA and PRAA repair results in significantly shorter wait times to surgery and is as safe, effective, and durable in the midterm compared with CSGs.

PMID:
26817612
DOI:
10.1016/j.jvs.2015.11.035
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center