Real world experience with the TREO device in standard EVAR: Mid-term results of 150 cases from a German Multicenter study

<b></b> <i>Background:</i> The objective of the study was to analyze mid-term results of unselected patients treated with the TREO (Terumo Aortic, Florida, USA) device at six German hospital sites. <i>Methods:</i> A multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients treated within and outside instructions for use (IFU) from January 2017 to November 2020 was performed. Primary outcomes were technical success, mortality and endograft related complications according to IFU status. Secondary outcomes were aneurysm/procedure related re-interventions. <i>Results:</i> 150 patients (92% male, mean age 73 ±8 years) were treated (within IFU 84% vs. outside IFU 16%) with the TREO device for abdominal aortic aneurysms (n=127 intact, n=17 symptomatic and n=6 ruptured; p=0.30). Technical success was achieved in 147/150 (within IFU 99% vs. outside IFU 92%, p=0.08). 30-day mortality was 2%, one year and overall mortality was 3% and 5%. During a mean follow-up of 28.4 months (range: 1-67.4 months), 35 (25%; within IFU 23% vs. outside IFU 35%, p=0.23) patients suffered from endoleaks. The majority were endoleaks type II (n=33), the remaining type Ia (n=5) and type Ib (n=3). No endoleaks type III-V, migrations or aneurysm ruptures occurred. Overall, 19 patients (13%; within IFU 13% vs. 15% outside IFU, p=0.70) received a secondary intervention: nine endoleak related endovascular procedures, three open conversions, two endograft limb related interventions, four surgical revisions of the femoral access sites and two bowl ischemia related procedures, respectively. <i>Conclusions:</i> This non industry-sponsored, multicenter trial indicates that using the TREO device in a real-world setting (both within and outside IFU) seems feasible in the treatment of patients suffering from AAA. While the rate of complications and secondary interventions is in line with previously published data, the findings highlight the fact that standard EVAR is associated with serious adverse events.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
VASA
Published
2024-09-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1024/0301-1526/a001148
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.68
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Real world experience with the TREO device in standard EVAR: Mid-term results of 150 cases from a German Multicenter study

Mario Lescan, Johannes Kalder, Jörg Teßarek, Sebastian Zerwes et al.
4 citations
VASA
Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
1.68
article

Real world experience with the TREO device in standard EVAR: Mid-term results of 150 cases from a German Multicenter study

Mario Lescan, Johannes Kalder, Jörg Teßarek, Sebastian Zerwes, Hans‐Henning Eckstein, Bartosz Rylski, H. Bruijnen, Alexander Hyhlik-Dürr, Stoyan Kondov, Paula R. Keschenau, Ana-Maria Ciura, Oksana Heiser
article en
4 citations

Abstract

<b></b> <i>Background:</i> The objective of the study was to analyze mid-term results of unselected patients treated with the TREO (Terumo Aortic, Florida, USA) device at six German hospital sites. <i>Methods:</i> A multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients treated within and outside instructions for use (IFU) from January 2017 to November 2020 was performed. Primary outcomes were technical success, mortality and endograft related complications according to IFU status. Secondary outcomes were aneurysm/procedure related re-interventions. <i>Results:</i> 150 patients (92% male, mean age 73 ±8 years) were treated (within IFU 84% vs. outside IFU 16%) with the TREO device for abdominal aortic aneurysms (n=127 intact, n=17 symptomatic and n=6 ruptured; p=0.30). Technical success was achieved in 147/150 (within IFU 99% vs. outside IFU 92%, p=0.08). 30-day mortality was 2%, one year and overall mortality was 3% and 5%. During a mean follow-up of 28.4 months (range: 1-67.4 months), 35 (25%; within IFU 23% vs. outside IFU 35%, p=0.23) patients suffered from endoleaks. The majority were endoleaks type II (n=33), the remaining type Ia (n=5) and type Ib (n=3). No endoleaks type III-V, migrations or aneurysm ruptures occurred. Overall, 19 patients (13%; within IFU 13% vs. 15% outside IFU, p=0.70) received a secondary intervention: nine endoleak related endovascular procedures, three open conversions, two endograft limb related interventions, four surgical revisions of the femoral access sites and two bowl ischemia related procedures, respectively. <i>Conclusions:</i> This non industry-sponsored, multicenter trial indicates that using the TREO device in a real-world setting (both within and outside IFU) seems feasible in the treatment of patients suffering from AAA. While the rate of complications and secondary interventions is in line with previously published data, the findings highlight the fact that standard EVAR is associated with serious adverse events.

VASAVol. 53(6)
University of Augsburg (DE), Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg (DE), TUM Klinikum (DE), Universitäts-Herzzentrum Freiburg-Bad Krozingen (DE), St. Bonifatius Hospital (DE), University of Tübingen (DE)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
1.68
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.