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: Impact of the Repositionable C3 Excluder System on the Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms With Unfavorable Neck Anatomy.
    Author: Hernández Mateo MM, Martínez López I, Revuelta Suero S, Marqués de Marino P, Cernuda Artero I, Cabrero Fernández M, Serrano Hernando FJ.
    Journal: J Endovasc Ther; 2016 Aug; 23(4):593-8. PubMed ID: 27149871.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To analyze the midterm clinical outcomes among patients with favorable and unfavorable neck morphology for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), specifically the impact of the repositionable C3 Excluder stent-graft on type I endoleak in patients with unfavorable neck. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 249 patients (mean age 74.3 years; 241 men) who underwent successful EVAR from January 2000 to December 2014 using either the traditional Excluder (n=140) or the C3 repositionable system (n=109). Unfavorable proximal aortic neck anatomy was defined by length <15 mm, angulation >60°, >50% circumferential thrombus, or >50% neck calcification. By these criteria, unfavorable neck anatomy was present in 71 (28.5%) patients (41 traditional Excluder and 30 C3 Excluder). The main endpoint was the incidence of type Ia endoleak and the need for a proximal cuff according to the type of neck anatomy. Comparisons between groups are reported as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A proximal extension cuff for type Ia endoleak was needed in 4 (2.2%) patients with favorable neck anatomy compared to 7 (9.9%) patients with unfavorable neck (OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.3 to 16.8, p=0.014). Among the patients with unfavorable neck, a proximal cuff was implanted in 6/41 (14.6%) traditional Excluder stent-grafts vs 1/30 (3.3%) in the C3 Excluder group (OR 4.39, 95% CI 0.55 to 34.58, p=0.23). Median follow-up was 30.5 and 38 months for favorable vs unfavorable neck groups, respectively (p=0.29). Only 1 case of type Ia endoleak was registered at 6.5 years' follow-up (traditional Excluder), with no device migration. CONCLUSION: Both Excluder stent-grafts provide good midterm clinical outcomes after EVAR in patients with unfavorable neck anatomy. Investigation of a larger cohort will be needed to identify if the C3 Excluder device offers any improvement over the traditional Excluder in terms of freedom from endoleaks.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]