不要混淆!不同近端主动脉袖带与 AFX 内植物的长期疗效。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Annals of vascular surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2024.10.024
Giulio Accarino , Aniello Enrico Puca , Antonia Rinaldi , Giovanni Fornino , Giancarlo Accarino , Davide Turchino , Raffaele Serra , Sergio Furgiuele , Carmine Vecchione , Umberto Marcello Bracale
{"title":"不要混淆!不同近端主动脉袖带与 AFX 内植物的长期疗效。","authors":"Giulio Accarino ,&nbsp;Aniello Enrico Puca ,&nbsp;Antonia Rinaldi ,&nbsp;Giovanni Fornino ,&nbsp;Giancarlo Accarino ,&nbsp;Davide Turchino ,&nbsp;Raffaele Serra ,&nbsp;Sergio Furgiuele ,&nbsp;Carmine Vecchione ,&nbsp;Umberto Marcello Bracale","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2024.10.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The AFX unibody endograft offers advantages in treating abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with narrow aortic bifurcations due to its unique design, where the flow divider sits at the native aortic bifurcation. However, its limited length options may limit complete proximal neck utilization. As per device instruction for use, the implant should be completed with an aortic cuff. This study aims to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients treated with an all-Endologix implant versus a combination of Endologix and Medtronic devices.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective, single-center study included 134 consecutive AAA patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the AFX unibody endograft paired with suprarenal aortic cuffs from Endologix (<em>n</em> = 86) or Medtronic (<em>n</em> = 48) between November 2011 and November 2022. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the type of aortic cuff used. The primary outcome was the occurrence of type 3A endoleaks at the longest available follow-up. Secondary outcomes included any endoleak, reintervention rates, all-cause mortality, and aneurysm-related death.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median follow-up was 41 months, and type 3A endoleaks occurred after a mean 34.8 months in 6 patients (4.5%), which is significantly more frequent in the mixed-device group (12.8%) (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). Type 3A endoleak occurred regardless of overlap and developed over time. Endoleaks of any type were reported in 17 patients. Reinterventions were needed in 12 patients. The use of an Endurant cuff was associated with a significantly increased risk of type 3A endoleaks (hazard ratio [HR] 16.5; 95% [CI] 1.9–143; <em>P</em> = 0.011) and reinterventions (HR 9.67; 95% CI 1.9–49.6; <em>P</em> = 0.006).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Combining endografts from different manufacturers, especially those with differing materials and sealing mechanisms, may compromise the long-term integrity of certain EVAR repairs. Clinicians should exercise caution when considering mixed-device configurations and ensure rigorous follow-up for patients with such implants.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":"111 ","pages":"Pages 122-130"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Not Mix It up! Long-Term Outcomes of Different Proximal Aortic Cuffs with the AFX Endograft\",\"authors\":\"Giulio Accarino ,&nbsp;Aniello Enrico Puca ,&nbsp;Antonia Rinaldi ,&nbsp;Giovanni Fornino ,&nbsp;Giancarlo Accarino ,&nbsp;Davide Turchino ,&nbsp;Raffaele Serra ,&nbsp;Sergio Furgiuele ,&nbsp;Carmine Vecchione ,&nbsp;Umberto Marcello Bracale\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.avsg.2024.10.024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The AFX unibody endograft offers advantages in treating abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with narrow aortic bifurcations due to its unique design, where the flow divider sits at the native aortic bifurcation. However, its limited length options may limit complete proximal neck utilization. As per device instruction for use, the implant should be completed with an aortic cuff. This study aims to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients treated with an all-Endologix implant versus a combination of Endologix and Medtronic devices.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective, single-center study included 134 consecutive AAA patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the AFX unibody endograft paired with suprarenal aortic cuffs from Endologix (<em>n</em> = 86) or Medtronic (<em>n</em> = 48) between November 2011 and November 2022. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the type of aortic cuff used. The primary outcome was the occurrence of type 3A endoleaks at the longest available follow-up. Secondary outcomes included any endoleak, reintervention rates, all-cause mortality, and aneurysm-related death.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median follow-up was 41 months, and type 3A endoleaks occurred after a mean 34.8 months in 6 patients (4.5%), which is significantly more frequent in the mixed-device group (12.8%) (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). Type 3A endoleak occurred regardless of overlap and developed over time. Endoleaks of any type were reported in 17 patients. Reinterventions were needed in 12 patients. The use of an Endurant cuff was associated with a significantly increased risk of type 3A endoleaks (hazard ratio [HR] 16.5; 95% [CI] 1.9–143; <em>P</em> = 0.011) and reinterventions (HR 9.67; 95% CI 1.9–49.6; <em>P</em> = 0.006).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Combining endografts from different manufacturers, especially those with differing materials and sealing mechanisms, may compromise the long-term integrity of certain EVAR repairs. Clinicians should exercise caution when considering mixed-device configurations and ensure rigorous follow-up for patients with such implants.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8061,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of vascular surgery\",\"volume\":\"111 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 122-130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of vascular surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890509624006927\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890509624006927","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:AFX 一体式内植物移植因其独特的设计而在治疗主动脉分叉狭窄的腹主动脉瘤(AAA)方面具有优势,其分流器位于原生主动脉分叉处。不过,其有限的长度选择可能会限制近端颈部的完全利用。根据设备使用说明,植入时应使用主动脉袖带。本研究旨在评估采用全 Endologix 装置与 Endologix 和美敦力装置组合治疗患者的长期疗效:这项回顾性单中心研究纳入了 2011 年 11 月至 2022 年 11 月间连续接受血管内动脉瘤修补术(EVAR)的 134 例 AAA 患者,他们都使用了 AFX 一体式内植物和 Endologix(86 例)或 Medtronic(48 例)的肾上主动脉袖带。根据使用的主动脉袖带类型将患者分为两组。主要结果是在最长的随访时间内发生 3A 型内漏。次要结果包括任何内漏、再介入率、全因死亡率和动脉瘤相关死亡:中位随访时间为41个月,6名患者(4.5%)在平均34.8个月后发生3A型内膜渗漏,混合装置组的发生率明显更高(12.8%)(p结论:将不同制造商生产的内植物组合在一起,尤其是材料和密封机制不同的内植物,可能会损害某些 EVAR 修复术的长期完整性。临床医生在考虑混合装置配置时应谨慎行事,并确保对使用此类植入物的患者进行严格的随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do Not Mix It up! Long-Term Outcomes of Different Proximal Aortic Cuffs with the AFX Endograft

Background

The AFX unibody endograft offers advantages in treating abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with narrow aortic bifurcations due to its unique design, where the flow divider sits at the native aortic bifurcation. However, its limited length options may limit complete proximal neck utilization. As per device instruction for use, the implant should be completed with an aortic cuff. This study aims to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients treated with an all-Endologix implant versus a combination of Endologix and Medtronic devices.

Methods

This retrospective, single-center study included 134 consecutive AAA patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the AFX unibody endograft paired with suprarenal aortic cuffs from Endologix (n = 86) or Medtronic (n = 48) between November 2011 and November 2022. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the type of aortic cuff used. The primary outcome was the occurrence of type 3A endoleaks at the longest available follow-up. Secondary outcomes included any endoleak, reintervention rates, all-cause mortality, and aneurysm-related death.

Results

The median follow-up was 41 months, and type 3A endoleaks occurred after a mean 34.8 months in 6 patients (4.5%), which is significantly more frequent in the mixed-device group (12.8%) (P < 0.001). Type 3A endoleak occurred regardless of overlap and developed over time. Endoleaks of any type were reported in 17 patients. Reinterventions were needed in 12 patients. The use of an Endurant cuff was associated with a significantly increased risk of type 3A endoleaks (hazard ratio [HR] 16.5; 95% [CI] 1.9–143; P = 0.011) and reinterventions (HR 9.67; 95% CI 1.9–49.6; P = 0.006).

Conclusions

Combining endografts from different manufacturers, especially those with differing materials and sealing mechanisms, may compromise the long-term integrity of certain EVAR repairs. Clinicians should exercise caution when considering mixed-device configurations and ensure rigorous follow-up for patients with such implants.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
603
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Vascular Surgery, published eight times a year, invites original manuscripts reporting clinical and experimental work in vascular surgery for peer review. Articles may be submitted for the following sections of the journal: Clinical Research (reports of clinical series, new drug or medical device trials) Basic Science Research (new investigations, experimental work) Case Reports (reports on a limited series of patients) General Reviews (scholarly review of the existing literature on a relevant topic) Developments in Endovascular and Endoscopic Surgery Selected Techniques (technical maneuvers) Historical Notes (interesting vignettes from the early days of vascular surgery) Editorials/Correspondence
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Cognitive Impairment is Common and Unrecognized in Vascular Surgery Patients Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm with Hostile Artery Access: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study Open Revascularization for Acute Mesenteric Ischemia is Associated with Increased Morbidity and Mortality when Compared to Endovascular Intervention Pancreaticoduodenal Artery Aneurysm in a Patient with Celiac Artery Atresia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1