Introduction: Favorable midterm outcomes have been reported with the use of low-profile endografts (LPE), but long-term data is still needed. Furthermore, it is unclear if each of these LPE may have advantages over the other, which may, in turn, affect the outcomes. We systematically reviewed the literature about complications and reintervention rates of patients submitted to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using LPE.
Matherials and methods: A literature search was conducted including articles that reported 30-days and follow-up mortality, complications, and reintervention rates of patients treated with EVAR using Incraft (Cordis), Zenith LP/Alpha (Cook Medical Inc) and Ovation (Endologix) endografts.
Results: 36 papers were evaluated, reporting results of 582 patients treated with Zenith device, 1211 with Incraft and 3449 with Ovation. During follow up, similar survival and freedom from reintervention rates were reported among the various types of endograft both at 1 and 3 years. The incidence of limb stenosis/kinking was significantly higher in patients treated with Zenith LP/Alpha (2.1%, P = 0.008), while the Incraft device had a significantly lower proportion of type III endoleaks (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Long-term survival and freedom from reintervention rates were comparable among the three LPEs. The Cook Zenith device had the highest rates of limb stenosis/kinking, while the Incraft device had the lowest occurrence of type III endoleak.
Prospero: Registration number: CRD42022315875.
Keywords: abdominal aortic aneurysm; endograft; endovascular aneurysm repair; low-profile endograft; reintervention.