Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Jun;67(6):1699-1707. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.10.059. Epub 2017 Dec 18.

Matched cohort comparison of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with and without EndoAnchors.

Author information

1
The Vascular Experts, Middletown, Conn.
2
Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.
3
Syntactx, New York, NY. Electronic address: kouriel@syntactx.com.
4
Yale Vascular Surgery, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Conn.
5
Department of Vascular Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this study was to examine whether prophylactic use of EndoAnchors (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, Calif) contributes to improved outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms through 2 years.

METHODS:

The Aneurysm Treatment Using the Heli-FX Aortic Securement System Global Registry (ANCHOR) subjects who received prophylactic EndoAnchors during EVAR were considered for this analysis. Imaging data of retrospective subjects who underwent EVAR at ANCHOR enrolling institutions were obtained to create a control sample. Nineteen baseline anatomic measurements were used to perform propensity score matching, yielding 99 matched pairs. Follow-up imaging of the ANCHOR and control cohorts was then compared to examine outcomes through 2 years, using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS:

Freedom from type Ia endoleak was 97.0% ± 2.1% in the ANCHOR cohort and 94.1% ± 2.5% in the control cohort through 2 years (P = .34). The 2-year freedom from neck dilation in the ANCHOR and control cohorts was 90.4% ± 5.6% and 87.3% ± 4.3%, respectively (P = .46); 2-year freedom from sac enlargement was 97.0% ± 2.1% and 94.0% ± 3.0%, respectively (P = .67). No device migration was observed. Aneurysm sac regression was observed in 81.1% ± 9.5% of ANCHOR subjects through 2 years compared with 48.7% ± 5.9% of control subjects (P = .01). Cox regression analysis found an inverse correlation between number of hostile neck criteria met and later sac regression (P = .05). Preoperative neck thrombus circumference and infrarenal diameter were also variables associated with later sac regression, although not to a significant degree (P = .10 and P = .06, respectively). Control subjects with thrombus were significantly less likely to experience later sac regression than those without thrombus (6% and 43%, respectively; P = .001). In ANCHOR subjects, rate of regression was not significantly different in subjects with or without thrombus (33% and 36%, respectively; P = .82). Control subjects with wide aortic necks (>28 mm) were observed to experience sac regression at a lower rate than subjects with smaller diameter necks (10% and 44%, respectively; P = .004). Wide neck and normal neck subjects implanted with EndoAnchors experienced later sac regression at roughly equivalent rates (44% and 33%, respectively; P = .50).

CONCLUSIONS:

In propensity-matched cohorts of subjects undergoing EVAR, the rate of sac regression in subjects treated with EndoAnchors was significantly higher. EndoAnchors may mitigate the adverse effect of wide infrarenal necks and neck thrombus on sac regression, although further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effect of EndoAnchors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01534819.

Comment in

PMID:
29248241
DOI:
10.1016/j.jvs.2017.10.059
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center