These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Risk-adjusted outcome analysis of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in a large population: how do stent-grafts compare?
    Author: van Marrewijk CJ, Leurs LJ, Vallabhaneni SR, Harris PL, Buth J, Laheij RJ, EUROSTAR collaborators.
    Journal: J Endovasc Ther; 2005 Aug; 12(4):417-29. PubMed ID: 16048373.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare differences in the applicability and incidence of postoperative adverse events among stent-grafts used for repair of infrarenal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: An analysis of 6787 patients from the EUROSTAR Registry database was conducted to compare aneurysm morphological features, patient characteristics, and postoperative events for the AneuRx, EVT/Ancure, Excluder, Stentor, Talent, and Zenith devices versus the Vanguard device (control) and each other. Annual incidence rates of complications were determined, and risks were compared using the Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: The annual incidence rates were: device-related endoleak (types I and III) 6% (range 4%-10%), type II endoleak 5% (range 0.3%-11%), migration 3% (range 0.5%-5%), kinking 2% (range 1%-5%), occlusion 3% (range 1%-5%), rupture 0.5% (range 0%-1%), and all-cause mortality 7% (range 5%-8%). After adjustment for factors influencing outcome, AneuRx, Excluder, Talent, and Zenith devices were associated with a lower risk of migration, kinking, occlusion, and secondary intervention compared to the Vanguard device. Significant increased risk for conversion (EVT/Ancure) and reduced risk of aneurysm rupture (AneuRx and Zenith) and all-cause mortality (Excluder) were found compared to the Vanguard device. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist between stent-grafts of different labels in terms of applicability and complications during intermediate to long-term follow-up. Since each stent-graft has its drawbacks, no single label can be identified as the best. It is reassuring that developments in stent-grafts indeed result in better performance than the early stent-grafts. However, a single device incorporating all the perceived improvements should still be pursued.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]