Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Effectiveness and Safety of Endoanchors in Abdominal and Thoracic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Tang, Esther Wai Chi; Lau, Arthur Chak Kai; Cheng, Joshua Cheuk Hei; Wong, Joseph Chi-Yeung; Chan, Yiu Che.
Affiliation
  • Tang EWC; Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
  • Lau ACK; Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
  • Cheng JCH; Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
  • Wong JC; Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
  • Chan YC; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
J Endovasc Ther ; : 15266028241245911, 2024 Apr 16.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38628025
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

This systematic review aimed to summarize the effectiveness and safety of endoanchor, a stabilizing device for the proximal endograft designed to prevent endoleak and stent migration in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR). MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline. Literature up to May 31, 2023 was searched and independently screened from 4 databases. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included intraoperative and follow-up endoleak, stent migration, and reintervention rates; sac regression; and 30-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS:

Sixteen EVAR (n=1145) and 6 TEVAR studies (n=163) using the Heli-Fx EndoAnchor system were included from 2225 retrieved records. For EVAR patients (mean follow-up=11.9 months), the endoleak, graft migration, and reintervention rates were 3.97% (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.36%-1.99%), 0.004% (95% CI=0.00%-0.76%), and 5.43% (95% CI=0.86%-12.54%), respectively. The endoleak rates for primary and revision EVAR were 0.16% (95% CI=0.00%-1.65%) and 3.60% (95% CI=0.14%-9.72%), respectively. Only 4 cases of 30-day mortality (n=4) were reported in the literature. For TEVAR patients, the endoleak, stent migration, and reintervention rates were 7.4% (95% CI=0.03%-0.13%), 0.2% (95% CI=0.00%-0.06%), and 17.1% (95% CI=0.01%-0.45%), respectively. The 30-day mortality was 0.9% (95% CI=0%-0.12%).

CONCLUSIONS:

Endoanchor fixation in EVAR and TEVAR is effective and safe in preventing and treating endoleak and stent migration. The mortality is minimal in EVAR but higher in TEVAR. CLINICAL IMPACT Endoleak, graft migration, and reintervention in EVAR and TEVAR with endoanchor use were rare. Mortality in EVAR was low. The adjunctive deployment of endoanchors is an effective and safe means to prevent and treat endoleak and stent migration in EVAR and TEVAR. Yet, long-term efficacy and safety data and randomized controlled trials would be required to definitively recommend endoanchor use in routine clinical practice.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Endovasc Ther Journal subject: ANGIOLOGIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: China Country of publication: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Endovasc Ther Journal subject: ANGIOLOGIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: China Country of publication: United States