Low profile endografts for the endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Expert Review of Medical Devices Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2023.2239148

Daniela Mazzaccaro, Paolo Righini, Matteo Giannetta, Marina Galligani, Valentina Milani, Alfredo Modafferi, Giovanni Malacrida, Giovanni Nano

{"title":"Low profile endografts for the endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms.","authors":"Daniela Mazzaccaro, Paolo Righini, Matteo Giannetta, Marina Galligani, Valentina Milani, Alfredo Modafferi, Giovanni Malacrida, Giovanni Nano","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2239148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Favorable midterm outcomes have been reported with the use of low-profile endografts (LPE), but long-term data is still needed. Furthermore, it is unclear if each of these LPE may have advantages over the other, which may, in turn, affect the outcomes. We systematically reviewed the literature about complications and reintervention rates of patients submitted to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using LPE.Matherials and methods: A literature search was conducted including articles that reported 30-days and follow-up mortality, complications, and reintervention rates of patients treated with EVAR using Incraft (Cordis), Zenith LP/Alpha (Cook Medical Inc) and Ovation (Endologix) endografts.Results: 36 papers were evaluated, reporting results of 582 patients treated with Zenith device, 1211 with Incraft and 3449 with Ovation. During follow up, similar survival and freedom from reintervention rates were reported among the various types of endograft both at 1 and 3 years. The incidence of limb stenosis/kinking was significantly higher in patients treated with Zenith LP/Alpha (2.1%, P = 0.008), while the Incraft device had a significantly lower proportion of type III endoleaks (P < 0.001).Conclusions: Long-term survival and freedom from reintervention rates were comparable among the three LPEs. The Cook Zenith device had the highest rates of limb stenosis/kinking, while the Incraft device had the lowest occurrence of type III endoleak.Prospero: Registration number: CRD42022315875.","PeriodicalId":12330,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","volume":"20 9","pages":"753-767"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2239148","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Favorable midterm outcomes have been reported with the use of low-profile endografts (LPE), but long-term data is still needed. Furthermore, it is unclear if each of these LPE may have advantages over the other, which may, in turn, affect the outcomes. We systematically reviewed the literature about complications and reintervention rates of patients submitted to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using LPE.

Matherials and methods: A literature search was conducted including articles that reported 30-days and follow-up mortality, complications, and reintervention rates of patients treated with EVAR using Incraft (Cordis), Zenith LP/Alpha (Cook Medical Inc) and Ovation (Endologix) endografts.

Results: 36 papers were evaluated, reporting results of 582 patients treated with Zenith device, 1211 with Incraft and 3449 with Ovation. During follow up, similar survival and freedom from reintervention rates were reported among the various types of endograft both at 1 and 3 years. The incidence of limb stenosis/kinking was significantly higher in patients treated with Zenith LP/Alpha (2.1%, P = 0.008), while the Incraft device had a significantly lower proportion of type III endoleaks (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Long-term survival and freedom from reintervention rates were comparable among the three LPEs. The Cook Zenith device had the highest rates of limb stenosis/kinking, while the Incraft device had the lowest occurrence of type III endoleak.

Prospero: Registration number: CRD42022315875.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

用于腹主动脉瘤血管内治疗的低剖面内移植物。

引言：使用低剖面内移植物（LPE）已报告了良好的中期结果，但仍需要长期数据。此外，尚不清楚这些LPE中的每一种是否都比另一种具有优势，这反过来可能会影响结果。我们系统地回顾了关于使用LPE进行腹主动脉瘤（AAA）血管内动脉瘤修复（EVAR）的患者的并发症和再干预率的文献。材料和方法：进行文献检索，包括报道30天和随访死亡率、并发症、，以及使用Incraft（Cordis）、Zenith LP/Alpha（Cook Medical Inc）和Ovation（Endologix）内移植物接受EVAR治疗的患者的再干预率。结果：对36篇论文进行了评估，报告了582名使用Zenith设备治疗的患者、1211名使用Incraft治疗的患者和3449名使用Ovation治疗的患者的结果。在随访期间，不同类型的内移植物在1岁和3岁时的存活率和无再干预率相似年。在接受Zenith LP/Alpha治疗的患者中，肢体狭窄/扭结的发生率显著较高（2.1%，P = 0.008），而Incraft装置的III型内漏比例显著较低（P 结论：三种LPE的长期生存率和无再干预率具有可比性。Cook-Zenith装置的肢体狭窄/扭结发生率最高，而Incraft装置的III型内漏发生率最低。Prospero：注册号：CRD42022315875。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Expert Review of Medical Devices 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

5.90

自引率

3.20%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal serves the device research community by providing a comprehensive body of high-quality information from leading experts, all subject to rigorous peer review. The Expert Review format is specially structured to optimize the value of the information to reader. Comprehensive coverage by each author in a key area of research or clinical practice is augmented by the following sections: Expert commentary - a personal view on the most effective or promising strategies Five-year view - a clear perspective of future prospects within a realistic timescale Key issues - an executive summary cutting to the author''s most critical points In addition to the Review program, each issue also features Medical Device Profiles - objective assessments of specific devices in development or clinical use to help inform clinical practice. There are also Perspectives - overviews highlighting areas of current debate and controversy, together with reports from the conference scene and invited Editorials.