Risk for surgical interventions following endovascular aneurysm repair with Endologix AFX or AFX2 Endovascular AAA Systems compared with other devices.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk for 90-day returns to care and long-term subsequent surgical interventions after primary endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with an Endologix AFX Endovascular AAA System compared with three other high-volume endograft devices. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's Endovascular Stent Graft Registry. Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary EVAR for AAA in the health care system from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2017, comprised the eligible study sample. The treatment group included patients who received an Endologix AFX or AFX2 device (n = 470). Patients who received one of three other high-volume endograft devices used within the health care system comprised the eligible comparison group (n = 2122). These patients were 2:1 propensity score matched without replacement to patients who received an Endologix device based on a number of patient and procedural characteristics. After the application of matching, conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the likelihood for 90-day emergency department visit and readmission. Cause-specific Cox regression was used to evaluate the long-term risk of endoleak, graft revision, secondary reintervention (not including revision), conversion to open repair, and rupture during follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of mortality (overall and aneurysm related). RESULTS: The final matched study sample included 470 patients who received an Endologix AFX or AFX2 device and 940 patients who received a different high-volume device. compared with the other devices, AFX/AFX2 had a higher risk for type III endoleak (hazard ratio [HR], 38.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.51-103.67), revision surgery >1 year after the primary EVAR (HR, 4.50; 95% CI, 3.10-6.54), rupture (HR, 6.52; 95% CI, 1.73-24.63), and aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.32-4.47) was observed with the use of AFX/AFX2. CONCLUSIONS: In our matched cohort study, patients who received an Endologix AFX System during their primary EVAR had a higher risk for several adverse longitudinal outcomes, as well as aneurysm-related mortality, when compared with patients who received other high-volume devices. Patients who have received these devices should be monitored closely after EVAR.

Decreasing trends in reintervention and readmission after endovascular aneurysm repair in a multiregional implant registry.

OBJECTIVE: As endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) matures into its third decade, measures such as long-term reintervention and readmission have become a focus of quality improvement efforts. Within a large United States integrated health care system, we describe time trends in the rates of long-term reinterventions utilization measures. METHODS: Data from a United States multiregional EVAR registry was used to perform a descriptive study of 3891 adults who underwent conventional infrarenal EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2010 and 2019. Three-year follow-up was 96.7%. Outcomes included 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft revision (defined as a procedure involving placement of a new endograft component), secondary interventions (defined as a procedure necessary for maintenance of EVAR integrity [eg, coil embolization and balloon angioplasty/stenting]), conversion to open, interventions for type II endoleaks alone, and 90-day readmission. Crude cause-specific reintervention probabilities were calculated by operative year using the Aalen-Johansen estimator, with death as a competing risk and December 31, 2020 as the study end date. RESULTS: Excluding interventions for type II endoleak alone, 1-year secondary intervention incidence decreased from 5.9% for EVARs in 2010 to 2.0% in 2019 (P < .001) and 3-year incidence decreased from 7.2% to 3.6% from 2010 to 2017 (P = .03). The 3-year incidences of graft revision (mean incidence, 3.4%) and conversion to open remained fairly stable (mean incidence, 0.6%) over time. The 3-year incidence of interventions for type II endoleak alone also decreased from 3.4% in 2010 to 0.7% in 2017 (P = .01). Ninety-day readmission rates decreased from 19.3% for index EVAR in 2010 to 9.2% in 2019 (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive data from a multiregional health care system demonstrates decreasing long-term secondary intervention and readmission rates over time in patients undergoing EVAR. These trends are not explained by evolving management of type II endoleaks and suggest improving graft durability, patient selection, or surgical technique. Further study is needed to define implant and anatomic predictors of different types of long-term reintervention.

Midterm outcomes for 605 patients receiving Endologix AFX or AFX2 Endovascular AAA Systems in an integrated healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Endologix issued important safety updates for the AFX Endovascular AAA System in 2016 and 2018 owing to the risk of type III endoleaks. Outcomes with these devices are limited to small case series with short-term follow-up. We describe the midterm outcomes for a large cohort of patients who received an Endologix AFX or AFX2 device. STUDY DESIGN: Data from an integrated healthcare system's implant registry, which prospectively monitors all patients after endovascular aortic repair, was used for this descriptive study. Patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair with three AFX System variations (Strata [AFX-S], Duraply [AFX-D], and AFX2 with Duraply [AFX2]) were identified (2011-2017). Crude cumulative event probabilities for endoleak (types I and III), major reintervention, conversion to open, rupture, and mortality (aneurysm related and all cause) were estimated. RESULTS: Among 605 patients, 375 received AFX-S, 197 received AFX-D, and 33 received AFX2. Median follow-up for the cohort was 3.9 (interquartile range, 2.5-5.1) years. The crude 2-year incidence of overall endoleak, any subsequent reintervention or conversion, and mortality was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-12.3), 12.0% (95% CI, 9.1-15.9), and 8.8% (95% CI, 6.3-12.2) for AFX-S. Respective estimates for AFX-D were 7.9% (95% CI, 4.8-13.0), 10.6% (95% CI, 6.9-16.1), and 9.7% (95% CI, 6.3-14.7); for AFX2, they were 14.1% (95% CI, 4.7-38.2), 16.2% (95% CI, 6.4-37.7), and 21.2% (95% CI, 10.7-39.4). CONCLUSIONS: The midterm outcomes of a large U.S. patient cohort with an Endologix AFX or AFX2 System demonstrate a concerning rate of adverse postoperative events. Patients with these devices should receive close clinical surveillance to prevent device-related adverse events.