Five Year Results of the French EPI-ANA-01 Registry of Anaconda™ Endografts in the Treatment of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Objective: A significant decrease in aneurysm related survival is observed at long term follow up after infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair. Therefore, longer term results with new generation endografts are essential. The aim of this post-approval French multicentre prospective observational study (EPI-ANA-01) was to evaluate the technical success and five year mortality and secondary intervention rates of the third generation Anaconda (TM) endograft. Methods: From June 2012 to October 2013, 176 consecutive unruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms were included (160 male patients, mean age 75.3 +/- 8.4 years). Survival, freedom from type la endoleak, limb events, and re-interventions were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Anatomical and clinical characteristics were compared according to the occurrence of migration, conversion, adverse limb events, endoleak, and sac enlargement. Results: The primary technical and clinical success rates were 98.3% and 94.9%, respectively. A hostile neck was identified in 33.9% of patients and 10.7% were treated outside instructions for use (IFU). An early post-operative (<= 30 days) mortality rate of 1.7% was observed. At one and five years, respectively, the overall survival rate was 94.9% and 65.9% (aneurysm related in four patients [2.3%]) and the clinical success rate was 90.9% and 70.6%. Secondary interventions were performed in 35 of 176 patients (19.9%). The overall limb occlusion rate was 7.9% and the aneurysm sac diameter decreased significantly (pre-operative diameter 53.9 +/- 8.6 mm vs. 42.3 +/- 14.7 mm at five years; p < .001). Patients treated outside the instructions for use (IFU) had significantly higher rates of migration, surgical conversion, and aneurysm sac expansion (p = .03). Conclusion: The Anaconda endograft provides high technical success and satisfactory five year aneurysm exclusion and clinical success rates. However, implantation outside the IFU should be avoided, as it leads to significantly worse outcomes, and caution over the risk of limb occlusion and distal embolisation should be observed.