Long-term outcomes of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with the Zenith AAA endovascular graft: a single-center study

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Can the Anaconda™ Custom-Made Device Deliver? An International Perspective

“…Similarly, freedom from endograft migration was 100 and 97% after 2 and 4 years, respectively ( 21 ). These rates are superior to freedom from reintervention and endograft migration achieved with Zenith ( 22 – 25 ). Interestingly, incidence of iliac limb occlusion was 14%, which is still comparable to values reported in studies using other devices in normal circumstances ( 21 ).…”

Correlative effect between sac regression and patient longevity following endovascular solution for abdominal aortic aneurysms: an international analysis

“…On the other hand, the Fenestrated Anaconda™'s main competitor, Zenith, is associated with comparable short-term but inferior long-term results. Verzini et al ( n = 610), 31 Vaaramaki et al ( n = 282), 32 Kawamata et al ( n = 95) 33 and Oderich et al ( n = 67) 34 reported comparable 30-day mortality of 0.8%, 1.8%, 0% and 1.5%. Strikingly, late morality was 7.2%, 7%, 23.2% and 10.4%, respectively.…”

Endovascular solutions for abdominal aortic aneurysms: A comparative review of clinical outcomes with custom-made endografts

“…Finally, two smaller additional studies reported no 30-day deaths. 24,25 A summary of the finding in this subsection can be found in Table 1 alongside results from additional Anaconda™ studies [26][27][28][29][30][31] as well as studies investigating Zenith [32][33][34][35] (to be discussed in the section 'Competitor devices'). Saratzis et al 12 Anaconda™ N = 51 16 0 3.9 Stella et al 13 Anaconda™ N = 100 23 3.3 3.3 Rödel et al 14 Anaconda™ N = 61 24 3.3 9.8 Freyrie et al 18 Anaconda™ N = 787 − 1.2 − Karkos et al 15 Anaconda™ N = 68 29 0 20 Rödel et al 24 Anaconda™ N = 36 40 0 22 Rolls et al 25 Anaconda™ N = 13 12 0 − Freyrie et al 17 Anaconda™ N = 177 33 1.1 3.6 Dijkstra et al 16 Anaconda™ N = 25 -0 2 0 Gallitto et al 26 Anaconda™ N = 26 12 7.7 − Shahverdyan et al 27 Anaconda™ N = 48 24 4 6 Kotelis et al 28 Anaconda™ N = 39 − 8 1 8 Colgan et al 29 Anaconda™ N = 101 − 3 − Midy et al 30 Anaconda™ N = 86 24 7 21.7 de Niet et al 31 Anaconda™ N = 29 -14 19 Midy et al 19 Anaconda™ N = 176 -1.7 5.1 Tigkiropolous et al 20 Anaconda™ N = 271 72 1.1 21 de Niet et al 23 Anaconda™ N = 335 − 4.2 15.8 Pini et al 21 Anaconda™ N = 127 21 4 9 Isernia et al 22 Anaconda™ N = 260 54 0.8 5.2 Verzini et al 32 Zenith N = 610 99 0.8 7.2 Vaaramaki et al 33 Zenith N = 282 − 1.8 7 Kawamata et al 34 Zenith N = 95 50 0 23.2 Oderich et al 35 Zenith N = 67 59 1.5 10.4…”

“…The authors reported freedom from reintervention and open conversion rates to be 95.6% and 99.2% at 1 year, 87.0% and 96.9% at 5 years, 77.4% and 94.0% at 10 years, and finally, 77.4% and 94.0% at 13 years, respectively. The Bologna group also found excellent freedom from 39 Anaconda™ N = 14 6 0 Saratzis et al 12 Anaconda™ N = 51 16 9.8 Stella et al 13 Anaconda™ N = 100 23 1 Rödel et al 14 Anaconda™ N = 61 24 14.8 Freyrie et al 18 Anaconda™ N = 787 − 12 Karkos et al 15 Anaconda™ N = 68 29 17.5 Rödel et al 24 Anaconda™ N = 36 40 11 Rolls et al 25 Anaconda™ N = 13 12 0 Freyrie et al 17 Anaconda™ N = 177 33 14.1 Dijkstra et al 16 Anaconda™ N = 25 − 0 Gallitto et al 26 Anaconda™ N = 26 12 11.5 Shahverdyan et al 27 Anaconda™ N = 48 24 21 Kotelis et al 28 Anaconda™ N = 39 − 5 Colgan et al 29 Anaconda™ N = 101 − 14.9 Midy et al 30 Anaconda™ N = 86 24 15.5 de Niet et al 31 Anaconda™ N = 29 − 10.3 Midy et al 19 Anaconda™ N = 176 − 27.2 Tigkiropolous et al 20 Anaconda™ N = 271 72 5 de Niet et al 23 Anaconda™ N = 335 − 7.4 Pini et al 21 Anaconda™ N = 127 21 4 Isernia et al 22 Anaconda™ N = 260 54 15 Verzini et al 32 Zenith N = 610 99 22.9 Vaaramaki et al 33 Zenith N = 282 − 41 Kawamata et al 34 Zenith N = 95 50 21.1 Oderich et al 35 Zenith N = 67 59 3 reintervention rates at 12-, 24-and 36-months which were 94%, 92% and 85%, respectively. 17 By 2 years follow-up, Rödel et al 14 and Stella et al 13 reported similar freedom from reintervention rates of 85.2% and 88.8%, respectively, and 100% freedom from endograft migration in both.…”

“…Moreover, the Fenestrated Anaconda™ required significantly less contrast volume than Zenith Fenestrated (130 mL vs. 180 mL, respectively; P = 0.001). In addition, estimated blood loss 12 Anaconda™ N = 51 16 5.8 0 2 2 Stella et al 13 Anaconda™ N = 100 23 2 0 0 4 Rodel et al 14 Anaconda™ N = 61 24 14.8 1.6 0 1.6 Freyrie et al 18 Anaconda™ N = 787 − − 1.3 0 1.7 Karkos et al 15 Anaconda™ N = 68 29 5.9 0 0 3 Rodel et al 24 Anaconda™ N = 36 40 11 7.5 0 7.5 Rolls et al 25 Anaconda™ N = 13 12 0 0 − 0 Freyrie et al 17 Anaconda™ N = 177 33 9.4 1.7 0 5.6 Dijkstra et al 16 Anaconda™ N = 25 -0 0 5 5 Gallitto et al 26 Anaconda™ N = 26 12 0 0 --Shahverdyan et al 27 Anaconda™ N = 48 24 14.5 0 2 15 Kotelis et al 28 Anaconda™ N = 39 − 5 0 0 2.6 Colgan et al 29 Anaconda™ N = 101 − − 0 0 0 Midy et al 30 Anaconda™ N = 86 24 3.7 2.3 2 7 de Niet et al 31 Anaconda™ N = 29 -6.9 6.9 3.4 -Midy et al 19 Anaconda™ N = 176 -19.9 4.5 1.7 7.9 Tigkiropolous et al 20 Anaconda™ N = 271 72 4.4 0 3 5.9 de Niet et al 2020 23 Anaconda™ N = 335 --0.3 0.5 − Pini et al 21 Anaconda™ N = 127 21 14.1 1.6 − 2.4 Isernia et al 22 Anaconda™ N = 260 54 11.5 0.38 0 3.2 Verzini et al 32 Zenith N = 610 99 6.5 0.5 0.3 3.4 Vaaramaki et al 33 Zenith N = 282 − 22 0 2 5 Kawamata et al 34 Zenith N = 95 50 − 0 1.1 3.2 Oderich et al 35 Zenith N = 67 59 29.9 0 3 − during the procedure was significantly less using Anaconda™ opposed to Zenith (100 mL vs. 250 mL, respectively; P < 0.001). At completion of angiography, there were significantly more ELs in the Zenith Fenestrated group (34, 31.0%) compared to the Fenestrated Anaconda™ group (18, 51.4%; P = 0.027).…”