Comparison of Cost and Efficacy of Trufill® vs Histoacryl® n-Butyl Cyanoacrylate for Translumbar Type 2 Endoleak Embolization.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The study aimed to compare the cost and efficacy of translumbar approach type 2 endoleak repairs using either Trufill® or Histoacryl® n-BCA liquid embolic. METHOD AND MATERIALS This was a retrospective review of patients who had translumbar approach type 2 endoleak repairs using either Trufill® or Histoacryl®. Patients were included if they underwent a technically successful type 2 endoleak repair via a translumbar approach with Trufill® or Histoacryl® n-BCA. A multivariable analysis was performed with the primary clinical outcome of percent change in aneurysm diameter per month compared. Procedure cost was calculated based on typical materials used. RESULTS: 20 Trufill® and 14 Histoacryl® patients were included. The mean procedure cost was higher for Trufill® ($5,757.30 vs. $1,586.09, p ≤ 0.001). There was no significant difference between Trufill® or Histoacryl® patients for age at first embolization, gender, total number of embolizations, number of feeding branches, aneurysm sac size prior to embolization, or residual endoleak at first follow-up. Trufill® patients had more coils used (12.0 vs. 4.3, p = 0.0007), less glue used (0.9 vs. 2.1 mL, p < 0.001), longer follow-up duration (33.5 vs. 13.2 months, p = 0.002), more follow-up CT angiograms (CTA) (3.7 vs. 1.9, p = 0.01), and larger excluded aneurysm sac size at most recent CTA (7.1 cm vs. 5.9 cm, p = 0.04). Percent change in sac diameter per month was not significantly different between Trufill® and Histoacryl® (0.21% vs. -0.25%/month, p = 0.06, respectively). There were no complications. CONCLUSION: Use of Histoacryl® over Trufill® n-BCA resulted in significantly less procedural cost while maintaining safety and efficacy.