Failure mode analysis of the Endologix endograft

Gary Lemmon, Raghu Motaganahalli, Tiffany Chang, James Slaven, Ben Aumiller, Bradford J. Kim, Michael Dalsing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Type III (T-III) endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain a major concern. Our center experienced a recent concentration of T-III endoleaks requiring elective and emergency treatment and prompted our review of all EVAR implants over a 40-month period from April 2011 until August 2014. This report represents a single center experience with T-III endoleak management with analysis of factors leading to the T-III-related failure of EVAR. Methods: A retrospective review of all the operative reports, medical records, and computed tomography scans were reviewed from practice surveillance. Using Society for Vascular Surgery aneurysm reporting standards, we analyzed the morphology of the aneurysms before and after EVAR implant using computed tomography. Index procedure and frequency of reinterventions required to maintain aneurysm freedom from rupture were compared across all devices using SAS v 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). Major adverse events (MAEs) requiring secondary interventions for aneurysm treatment beyond primary implant were analyzed for methods of failure. Aneurysm morphology of patients requiring EVAR was compared across all endograft devices used for repair. For purposes of MAE analysis, patients receiving Endologix (ELX) endograft were combined into group 1; Gore, Cook, and Medtronic endograft patients were placed into group 2. Results: Overall, technical success and discharge survival were achieved in 97.3% and 98% of patients regardless of device usage. There was no significant device related difference identified between patient survival or freedom from intervention. MAEs involving aneurysm treatment were over seven-fold more frequent with ELX (group 1) vs non-ELX (group 2) endografts (P <.01). Group 1 patients with aneurysm diameters larger than 65 mm were associated with a highly significant value for development of a T-III endoleak (odds ratio, 11.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.17, 57.27; P = .0038). Conclusions: While EVAR technical success and survival were similar across all devices, ELX devices exhibited an unusually high incidence of T-III endoleaks when implanted in abdominal aortic aneurysms with a diameter of more than 65 mm. Frequent reinterventions were required for Endologix devices for prevention of aneurysm rupture due to T-III endoleaks.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Aug 12 2015

Fingerprint

Aneurysm
Endoleak
Equipment and Supplies
Survival
Rupture
Tomography
Emergency Treatment
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Statistical Factor Analysis
Medical Records
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Failure mode analysis of the Endologix endograft. / Lemmon, Gary; Motaganahalli, Raghu; Chang, Tiffany; Slaven, James; Aumiller, Ben; Kim, Bradford J.; Dalsing, Michael.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, 12.08.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d348b77d4e2e444c90414acd318f2b9f,
title = "Failure mode analysis of the Endologix endograft",
abstract = "Objective: Type III (T-III) endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain a major concern. Our center experienced a recent concentration of T-III endoleaks requiring elective and emergency treatment and prompted our review of all EVAR implants over a 40-month period from April 2011 until August 2014. This report represents a single center experience with T-III endoleak management with analysis of factors leading to the T-III-related failure of EVAR. Methods: A retrospective review of all the operative reports, medical records, and computed tomography scans were reviewed from practice surveillance. Using Society for Vascular Surgery aneurysm reporting standards, we analyzed the morphology of the aneurysms before and after EVAR implant using computed tomography. Index procedure and frequency of reinterventions required to maintain aneurysm freedom from rupture were compared across all devices using SAS v 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). Major adverse events (MAEs) requiring secondary interventions for aneurysm treatment beyond primary implant were analyzed for methods of failure. Aneurysm morphology of patients requiring EVAR was compared across all endograft devices used for repair. For purposes of MAE analysis, patients receiving Endologix (ELX) endograft were combined into group 1; Gore, Cook, and Medtronic endograft patients were placed into group 2. Results: Overall, technical success and discharge survival were achieved in 97.3{\%} and 98{\%} of patients regardless of device usage. There was no significant device related difference identified between patient survival or freedom from intervention. MAEs involving aneurysm treatment were over seven-fold more frequent with ELX (group 1) vs non-ELX (group 2) endografts (P <.01). Group 1 patients with aneurysm diameters larger than 65 mm were associated with a highly significant value for development of a T-III endoleak (odds ratio, 11.16; 95{\%} confidence interval, 2.17, 57.27; P = .0038). Conclusions: While EVAR technical success and survival were similar across all devices, ELX devices exhibited an unusually high incidence of T-III endoleaks when implanted in abdominal aortic aneurysms with a diameter of more than 65 mm. Frequent reinterventions were required for Endologix devices for prevention of aneurysm rupture due to T-III endoleaks.",
author = "Gary Lemmon and Raghu Motaganahalli and Tiffany Chang and James Slaven and Ben Aumiller and Kim, {Bradford J.} and Michael Dalsing",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvs.2016.03.416",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Failure mode analysis of the Endologix endograft

AU - Lemmon, Gary

AU - Motaganahalli, Raghu

AU - Chang, Tiffany

AU - Slaven, James

AU - Aumiller, Ben

AU - Kim, Bradford J.

AU - Dalsing, Michael

PY - 2015/8/12

Y1 - 2015/8/12

N2 - Objective: Type III (T-III) endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain a major concern. Our center experienced a recent concentration of T-III endoleaks requiring elective and emergency treatment and prompted our review of all EVAR implants over a 40-month period from April 2011 until August 2014. This report represents a single center experience with T-III endoleak management with analysis of factors leading to the T-III-related failure of EVAR. Methods: A retrospective review of all the operative reports, medical records, and computed tomography scans were reviewed from practice surveillance. Using Society for Vascular Surgery aneurysm reporting standards, we analyzed the morphology of the aneurysms before and after EVAR implant using computed tomography. Index procedure and frequency of reinterventions required to maintain aneurysm freedom from rupture were compared across all devices using SAS v 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). Major adverse events (MAEs) requiring secondary interventions for aneurysm treatment beyond primary implant were analyzed for methods of failure. Aneurysm morphology of patients requiring EVAR was compared across all endograft devices used for repair. For purposes of MAE analysis, patients receiving Endologix (ELX) endograft were combined into group 1; Gore, Cook, and Medtronic endograft patients were placed into group 2. Results: Overall, technical success and discharge survival were achieved in 97.3% and 98% of patients regardless of device usage. There was no significant device related difference identified between patient survival or freedom from intervention. MAEs involving aneurysm treatment were over seven-fold more frequent with ELX (group 1) vs non-ELX (group 2) endografts (P <.01). Group 1 patients with aneurysm diameters larger than 65 mm were associated with a highly significant value for development of a T-III endoleak (odds ratio, 11.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.17, 57.27; P = .0038). Conclusions: While EVAR technical success and survival were similar across all devices, ELX devices exhibited an unusually high incidence of T-III endoleaks when implanted in abdominal aortic aneurysms with a diameter of more than 65 mm. Frequent reinterventions were required for Endologix devices for prevention of aneurysm rupture due to T-III endoleaks.

AB - Objective: Type III (T-III) endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain a major concern. Our center experienced a recent concentration of T-III endoleaks requiring elective and emergency treatment and prompted our review of all EVAR implants over a 40-month period from April 2011 until August 2014. This report represents a single center experience with T-III endoleak management with analysis of factors leading to the T-III-related failure of EVAR. Methods: A retrospective review of all the operative reports, medical records, and computed tomography scans were reviewed from practice surveillance. Using Society for Vascular Surgery aneurysm reporting standards, we analyzed the morphology of the aneurysms before and after EVAR implant using computed tomography. Index procedure and frequency of reinterventions required to maintain aneurysm freedom from rupture were compared across all devices using SAS v 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). Major adverse events (MAEs) requiring secondary interventions for aneurysm treatment beyond primary implant were analyzed for methods of failure. Aneurysm morphology of patients requiring EVAR was compared across all endograft devices used for repair. For purposes of MAE analysis, patients receiving Endologix (ELX) endograft were combined into group 1; Gore, Cook, and Medtronic endograft patients were placed into group 2. Results: Overall, technical success and discharge survival were achieved in 97.3% and 98% of patients regardless of device usage. There was no significant device related difference identified between patient survival or freedom from intervention. MAEs involving aneurysm treatment were over seven-fold more frequent with ELX (group 1) vs non-ELX (group 2) endografts (P <.01). Group 1 patients with aneurysm diameters larger than 65 mm were associated with a highly significant value for development of a T-III endoleak (odds ratio, 11.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.17, 57.27; P = .0038). Conclusions: While EVAR technical success and survival were similar across all devices, ELX devices exhibited an unusually high incidence of T-III endoleaks when implanted in abdominal aortic aneurysms with a diameter of more than 65 mm. Frequent reinterventions were required for Endologix devices for prevention of aneurysm rupture due to T-III endoleaks.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84967007034&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84967007034&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.03.416

DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.03.416

M3 - Article

C2 - 27189768

AN - SCOPUS:84967007034

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

ER -