Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose:

The objective of this systematic review was to report the cumulative incidence of endograft migration (EM), as well as the morbidity, reintervention rates, and mortality related to EM. This study aimed to provide evidence-based data on patient-relevant sequelae of EM after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) performed using contemporary aortic endografts.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic electronic search of literature in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. The pooled synthesis of outcomes was performed using the inverse variance method.

Results:

Seven prospective non-randomized and 4 retrospective studies, including a total of 1783 patients presenting 70 EMs, were considered for the quantitative analysis. The pooled rate of EM was 4% (95% CI, 2%–7%; range, 0.2%–11%; I2=82%); pooled morbidity rate was 31% (95% CI, 12%–59%; range, 0%–100%; I2=64%) and pooled reintervention rate was 32% (95% CI, 15%–56%; range, 0%–100%; I2=55%). The pooled mortality rate due to EM was 5% (95% CI, 1%–21%; range, 0%–40%; I2=24%).

Conclusion:

For the first time, this meta-analysis provides pooled reference estimates of EM after TEVAR. Thus, the results hold the potential to further characterize EM after TEVAR. The clinical relevance of EM is underlined by its association with high rates of endoleak-related morbidity, reintervention, and mortality. Close standardized surveillance after TEVAR for early detection of EM and prophylaxis of its sequelae is essential.

Keywords

TEVAR migration thoracic aorta endograft migration TEVAR complications TEVAR outcomes

Clinical Impact

The study underline the essentiality of the close standardized surveillance after TEVAR for early detection of endograft migration and prophylaxis of its sequelae. The study prove the clinical relevance of endograft migration, underlining its association with high rates of endoleak-related morbidity, reintervention and mortality. For the first time, this meta-analysis provides pooled reference estimates of endograft migration after TEVAR. Thus, the results hold the potential to further characterize endograft migration after TEVAR.

Introduction

More than 27 years after the first implant by MD Dake,¹ thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the treatment of choice for a variety of thoracic aortic pathologies.² Late endograft migration (EM) after TEVAR refers to endograft-related complications, including endoleaks, aortic rupture, and reintervention.^3–5 Early diagnosis of EM may prevent its clinical sequelae and improve rupture-free survival. A protocol of reporting standards for TEVAR including assessment of endograft location was published in 2010.3 However, literature and evidence on this clinically important topic remain limited.^5,6

The majority of related studies failed to analyze EM per-standard and reported heterogeneous EM rates using diverse assessment methods and definitions. Furthermore, reported EM-related reintervention and morbidity/mortality rates vary widely between studies. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to report the cumulative incidence of EM, as well as morbidity, reintervention rates, and mortality related to EM. This meta-analysis aimed to provide evidence-based data on patient-relevant sequelae of EM after TEVAR performed using contemporary aortic endografts.

Materials and Methods

Protocol and Registration

This systematic review was reported according to recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Terms for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA).⁷ The review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No. CRD42020194309, registered 01/08/2020).

Eligibility Criteria

Prospective and retrospective studies that reported the results of TEVAR due to thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA), dissection of the aortic arch and the descending thoracic aorta (TAD), penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU), intramural hematoma (IMH), traumatic aortic rupture (TAR), anastomotic aneurysm (AA), or aorto-oesophageal/aorto-bronchial fistula (ABF/AEF) and reported endograft migration in the follow-up (FU) were eligible. All included studies used a definition of EM according to the reporting standard, and assessment of endograft position was performed using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CTA).³ A minimum of 6 months of FU were deemed necessary for inclusion. The maximum FU-time was not restricted.

Studies that reported branched/chimney technique/fenestrated TEVAR or the results of solely open thoracic aortic repair were excluded. If the outcomes of TEVAR and open repair of thoracic aorta were reported in the trial and the outcomes for TEVAR branch were fully accessible individually, the TEVAR branch was included in the analysis.

Case reports and case series (<50 patients in study cohort) were excluded. Furthermore, animal studies, meeting abstracts, letters/comments/editorials, articles pre-dating 2010, and publications for which the full text was irretrievable were excluded.

Information Sources

A systematic electronic search of the literature in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed.⁸ Moreover, a hand search of the reference lists of relevant articles, as well as citing references in the Web of Science, was conducted.

Search Strategy

The search strategy was built using a combination of the following key search terms and synonyms as index or free text words and MeSH terms:

((((treatment [tiab] OR repair* [tiab] OR approach [tiab] OR therap* [tiab] OR management [tiab] OR surger* [tiab] OR stent* [tiab] OR graft* [tiab] OR stentgraft* [tiab] OR stent graft* [tiab] OR endostent* [tiab] OR endograft* [tiab] OR endoprosthe* [tiab]) OR (“Stents”[Mesh] OR “Blood Vessel Prosthesis” [Mesh] OR “Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects”[Mesh] OR “Prosthesis Failure”[Mesh] OR “Foreign-Body Migration/surgery “[Mesh])) AND (thorax* [tiab] OR thoraces [tiab] OR thoracic [tiab] OR thoracal [tiab] OR ascend*[tiab] OR descend*[tiab]) AND (endovascul*[tiab] OR aort*[tiab] OR “Endovascular Procedures”[Mesh] OR “Aorta, Thoracic “[Mesh])) OR (TEVAR [tiab] OR “thoracic aortic endovascular aneurysm repair” [tiab] OR “thoracic endovascular aortic repair” [tiab] OR “thoracic endovascular repair”[tiab])) AND (dislocat* [tiab] OR displace* [tiab] OR movement* [tiab] OR shift* [tiab] OR drift* [tiab] OR misplace*[tiab] OR dislodgement [tiab] OR dislodgment [tiab] OR migrat* [tiab] OR disconnect*[tiab] OR separation*[tiab] OR angulation*[tiab] OR malpositioning [tiab]) NOT (animals [mh] NOT humans [mh]).⁸

To exclude studies investigating TEVAR performed with first-generation thoracic endografts, and studies published before the establishment of reporting standards, which defined a protocol of endograft position assessment, articles were searched starting with a publication date after January 1, 2010. The last search was performed on October 1, 2021.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Data were extracted from the trials that met the inclusion criteria using a standardized form. Two reviewers (D.S. and E.K.) independently extracted the data and any queries/discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (M.S.B.).

The following variables were gathered: author, full citation, study design (prospective or retrospective), demographic data (age, gender), clinical data (coronary artery disease [CAD], arterial hypertension [AH], congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus [DM], prior vascular or aortic intervention, renal failure/dialysis and smoking, diagnosis, type of proximal landing zone, type of endograft), and follow-up (FU) settings. Other data included migration rate, time point of migration, migration site (proximal/distal landing zone or overlapping zone), migration-associated reintervention rate, and morbidity/mortality rates.

Outcomes and Definitions

The outcomes of the review were incidence of EM, EM-related reintervention rate, as well as EM-related morbidity and mortality.

EM was defined according to current reporting standards as an asymptomatic endograft displacement of >10 mm relative to a primary anatomic landmark or any displacement that led to symptoms or required therapy during follow-up.³

EM-related morbidity was defined as aortic rupture, endoleaks (ELs) type I/III, or aneurysm sack expansion without visible EL due to EM.

EM-related reintervention was defined as endovascular or open reintervention performed due to EM-related morbidity.

EM-related mortality was defined as death due to EM-related morbidity.

The classification of ELs and proximal landing zones (PLZ) was performed according to the previously published literature.^9,10

Mid-term FU was defined as between 1 and 5 years after TEVAR, and long-term FU thereafter.³

Quality Assessment

The risk of bias was assessed in accordance with the Cochrane bias assessment tool for non-randomized intervention studies adapted for non-interventional studies (ROBINS-I tool).¹¹ Each of the following domains were evaluated: bias due to confounding, bias in selection of participants into the study, bias in classification of intervention, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing data, bias in measurement of outcomes, and bias in selection of the reported result. Each potential source of bias was graded as low risk, moderate risk, serious risk, critical risk, or no information/unclear. An overall judgment of the presence of bias in each study was subsequently performed.

Statistical Analysis

For all outcomes, a random-effects model was applied to account for methodological and clinical differences. Statistical heterogeneity among the effect estimates of the included trials was evaluated using the I² statistic. In the analysis, an I² less than 25% was considered to indicate low heterogeneity and an I² > 75% to indicate high heterogeneity.¹²

Pooled rates and means with 95% CI for the above-mentioned outcomes were calculated using the inverse variance method. Primary statistical analysis and meta-analysis was performed using program R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Forest plots were used for graphical presentation of overall effect estimates.

Results

Study Selection

A total of 439 articles were screened for eligibility (Figure 1). After removing duplicates and screening abstracts, the evaluation of 48 full-text articles was performed. Fourteen studies were excluded from further analysis because they failed to define EM and 11 due to duplication; 6 studies reported non-interpretable data, 2 studies reported a short FU (<6 months), and 4 studies did not present EM as an endpoint (Figure 1). If duplication of results occurred, the study that reported a longer FU was included. Two trials did not indicate the definition of EM, but this was clarified through communication with the corresponding author.^13,14 One trial reported migration as an endpoint, failing to describe EM-related clinical sequelae. This lack of information was resolved through communication with the corresponding author.¹⁵ Eleven studies with a total of 1783 patients presenting 70 EMs were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Figure 1.

PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.^a

Study Characteristics

No randomized controlled trials reporting EM after TEVAR were identified. Predominantly prospective, non-randomized studies were included in the study (63.6%, 7/11); 36.4% (4/11) of the included trials were of a retrospective nature. The pooled analysis included 1783 patients (Table 1). Male gender was predominant (range, 59%–77%), as well as age over 50 years (range, 53.3±20.6–72.2±9.4 years) and the profile of risk factors included AH (range, 41%–98.5%), congestive heart failure (range, 2.4%–27.9%), CAD (range, 7.9%–47%), DM (range, 6%–21%), renal failure/dialysis (range, 0.9%–17.5%), and smoking (range, 21.5%–100%) (Table 1). The indication for TEVAR was TAA, AD, or PAU (11/11, 6/11, and 6/11 of trials, respectively) (Table 2).

Table 1.

Study Characteristics and Demographics.

Study	Study design	Total number of patients	Age, yearsSD/range/IQR	Males, % (n/N)	Arterial hypertension, % (n/N)	Coronary arterial disease, % (n/N)	Congestive heart failure, % (n/N)	Diabetes mellitus, % (n/N)	Prior aortic surgery, % (n/N)	Renal failure/dialysis, % (n/N)	Active smoking/smoking, % (n/N)
Jordan et al¹⁴	1	66	72.2±9.4	59.1 (39/66)	98.5 (65/66)	47 (31/66)	10.6 (7/66)	19.7 (13/66)	n	10.6 (7/66)	69.7 (46/66)
Skrypnik et al¹⁶	2	194	65±13	57.2 (111/194)	82.3 (158/192)	28.3 (55/194)	10.5 (20/190)	12.4 (24/194)	28.1 (54/192)	14.9 (29/194)	51.0 (96/188)
Yoon and Mell¹⁵	2	63	53.3±20.6	61.9 (39/63)	41.3 (26/63)	7.9 (5/63)	n	7.9 (5/63)	n	4.8 (3/63)	n
Torsello et al¹⁷	1	127	67.1±12.1	72.4 (92/127)	81.0 (102/127)	11.7 (22/127)	2.4 (3/127)	13.4 (17/127)	n	11.8 (15/127)	100 (127/127)
Geisbüsch et al⁵	2	123	63.4±12.4	63.4 (78/123)	89.4 (110/123)	31.7 (39/123)	27.9 (26/93)	9.8 (12/123)	n	n	59.2 (71/120)
Peidro et al¹⁸	2	76	54±22	77 (58/76)	n	n	n	n	n	n	n
Beach et al⁴	1	200	72.6 (65.7–78.2)	54 (108/200)	85.5 (171/200)	n	16 (32/200)	6 (12/200)	25.5 (21/200)	17.5 (35/200)	22.3 (43/200)
Matsumura et al¹⁹	1	158	72.5 (26–90)	72.2 (114/158)	89.2 (141/158)	43 (68/158)	12 (19/158)	18.9 (39/158)	29.1 (46/158)	3.2 (5/158)	21.5 (34/158)
Fairman et al²⁰	1	160	72.2±9.1	59.4 (95/160)	93.8 (150/160)	44.4 (71/160)	11.9 (19/160)	21.3 (34/160)	20.6 (33/160)	16.3 (26/160)	44.4 (71/160)
Foley et al²¹	1	195	70.2±11.1/73 (27–86)	59 (115/195)	87.2 (170/195)	40.5 (79/195)	8.7 (17/195)	15.9 (31/195)	2.1 (4/195)	17.4 (34/195)	76.9 (150/195)
Kasirajan et al¹³	1	421	71.0±10.8 (males), 72.8±9.5 (females)	62.9 (265/421)	n	36.1 (152/421)	9.0 (38/421)	n	n	0.95 (4/421)	68.7 (282/421)

Study design: Prospective, non-randomized-1, Retrospective-2.

Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; n, no data; SD, standard deviation.

Table 2.

Indication for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR), Operative Settings, and Length of FU.

Study	Indication	Type of endograft	Proximal landing zone, % (n/N)				FU, years/range of FU
Study	Indication	Type of endograft	1	2	3	4	FU, years/range of FU
Jordan et al¹⁴	1	1	n	n	n	n	1–5
Skrypnik et al¹⁶	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8	1	9.8 (19/194)	34.0 (66/194)	33.5 (65/194)	21.1 (41/194)	0.5–10
Yoon and Mell¹⁵	1, 3, 4, 6	1, 3, 5, 10	3.2 (2/63)	23.8 (15/63)	73.0 (46/63)	n	4.8
Torsello et al¹⁷	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9	9	7.1 (9/127)	40.9 (52/127)	28.3 (36/1279	1.6 (2/127)	0–1
Geisbüsch et al⁵	1, 3, 4, 5, 6	1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11	10.6 (13/123)	37.4 (46/123)	38.2 (47/123)	11.4 (14/123)	0.5–10
Peidro et al¹⁸	3, 1, 6, 9	1, 4, 6, 5, 3, 11	n	47.5 (36/76)	39.5 (30/76)	13 (10/76)	0.2–8.2
Beach et al⁴	1, 3, 8	2, 3	n	n	n	n	0–9.3
Matsumura et al¹⁹	1, 4	3	n	n	n	n	0–5
Fairman et al²⁰	1, 4	5	n	n	n	n	0–1
Foley et al²¹	1	6	6.7 (13/195)	26.8 (52/195)	35.6 (69/195)	30.9 (60/1959	0–5
Kasirajan et al¹³	1	4	n	n	n	n	0–1

Indication: Thoracic aortic aneurysm-1, Thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm-2, Aortic dissection-3, Penetrated aortic ulcer-4, Intramural haematoma-5, Traumatic aortic rupture-6, Patch aneurysm-7, Aorto-bronchial of aorto-oesophageal fistula-8, other-9; Type of endograft: CTAG-1, Zenith TX1-2, Zenith TX2-3, TAG -4, Valiant-5, Talent-6, Relay-7, Seal-8, CTAG active control-9, Zenith Alpha-10; other-11.

Abbreviations: FU, follow-up; n, no data.

The PLZ was predominantly in zones 2–3 and FU was up to 10 years after TEVAR (Table 2).

One type of endograft was used for TEVAR in 63.7% (7/11) of studies, while various types of endografts were used for TEVAR in the remaining 36.4% (4/11). All types of endografts are listed in Table 2. Long-term outcomes were reported in 63.7% (7/11) of studies, while the rest showed outcomes within the mid-term FU (Table 2).

The studies reported migration rates ranging between 0.2% and 11%. The time point of migration was randomly distributed between 8 and 64 months in all landing zones (Table 3). All trials reported close surveillance during FU after TEVAR with CTA after the intervention, predominantly at 6 or 12 months and annually thereafter.

Table 3.

Migration of Endografts.

Study	Migration rate, % (n of migrations/N of study group)	Time point of migration, month after TEVAR	Migration site, n of migration in zone			Migration-associated reintervention rate, % (n of reinterventions patients with migration /N of migrations)	Migration-associated morbidity rate, % (n of complicated with migration/N of migrations)	Migration-associated mortality rate, % (n of deaths due to migration / N of migrations)
Study	Migration rate, % (n of migrations/N of study group)	Time point of migration, month after TEVAR	Proximal landing zone	Distal landing zone	Overlapping zone
Jordan et al¹⁴	9.1 (6/66)	12, 24, 36, 60	0	1	6^a	0	16.7 (1/6)	0
Skrypnik et al¹⁶	2.6 (5/194)	12, 19, 31, 43, 64	2	1	2	80 (4/5)	100 (5/5)	40 (2/5)
Yoon and Mell¹⁵	1.6 (1/63)	14	1	0	0	100 (1/1)	100 (1/1)	0
Torsello et al¹⁷	0.8 (1/127)	12	1	0	0	100 (1/1)	100 (1/1)	0
Geisbüsch et al⁵	7.3 (9/123)	8, 11, 14, 22, 30, 32, 43, 49, 64	1	5	4	55.5 (5/9)	44.4 (4/9)	11.1 (1/9)
Peidro et al¹⁸	5.2 (4/76)	29	4	n	n	n	n	n
Beach et al⁴	11 (22/200)	3.2±1.7 years	n	n	n	40.9 (9/22)	13.6 (3/22)	4.5 (1/22)
Matsumura et al¹⁹	7.6 (12/158)	12, 24, 60	10	4	0	16.7 (2/12)	16.7 (2/12)	0
Fairman et al²⁰	2.9 (3/105)	12	n	3	0	0	0	0
Foley et al²¹	3.1 (6/195)	12, 24, 36, 48, 60	n	n	n	16.7 (1/6)	16.7 (1/6)	0
Kasirajan et al¹³	0.23 (1/421)	12	n	n	n	0	0	n

Abbreviations: n, no data; TEVAR, thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

One patient showed migration in overlapping and in distal landing zone.

EM-related morbidity was reported in 8 trials.^{4,5,14–17,19,21} Two trials reported no EM-related morbidity and 1 trial failed to report the outcomes in this term (Table 3).

Three trials reported no reinterventions during mid-term FU.^13,14,20 The trials reporting on long-term FU showed that reintervention rates due to EM ranged between 0% and 100%.^{4,5,15–17,19,21} The one trial that formally reported late mid-term results with a maximal FU of 1750 days reported 100% (1/1) reintervention in the migration group.¹⁵

The EM-related reinterventions that were performed were predominantly endovascular (82.6%; 19/23): 6 trials reported endolining or proximal/distal extension;^{4,5,16,17,19,21} 2 trials reported FEVAR.^4,5 Overall, 4 open conversions in 4 trials were reported.^4,5,15,16

The EM-related mortality in the migration group ranged from 0% to 40% (Table 3).

Four trials reported the cause of EM. Skrypnik et al¹⁶ reported EL type II and progression of aortic degeneration as a leading cause of EM. Beach et al⁴ reported progression of aortic degeneration and aneurysm sack growth as a leading cause of EM. EM due to unfavorable oversizing and funnel-shaped landing zones was reported by Matsumura et al.¹⁹ Only 1 trial reported statistical grounding as a risk factor of EM (aortic elongation [p=0.003] and TAA [p=0.01]), thus quantitative analysis of the risk factors could not be performed.⁵

Risk-of-Bias Assessment

The ROBINS-I tool assessment adapted for non-interventional studies revealed that all trials included in quantitative analyses showed a low risk of bias of confounding, selection of participants, and classification of intervention (Table 4). Moreover, the risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias in measurement of outcomes, and bias in selection of reported results was also low.

Table 4.

Risk-of-Bias Assessment.

Reference	No. of patients	Study design	Bias due to confounding	Bias in selection of participants into the study	Bias in classification of intervention	Bias due to deviations from intended interventions	Bias due to missing data	Bias in measurement of outcomes	Bias in selection of the reported results
Jordan et al¹⁴	66	Prospective non-randomized	low	low	low	low	serious	low	low
Skrypnik et al¹⁶	194	Retrospective	low	low	low	low	low	low	low
Yoon and Mell¹⁵	63	Retrospective	low	low	low	low	serious	low	low
Torsello et al¹⁷	127	Prospective non-randomized	low	low	low	low	low	low	low
Geisbüsch et al⁵	123	Retrospective	low	low	low	low	serious	low	low
Peidro et al¹⁸	76	Retrospective	low	low	low	low	serious	low	low
Beach et al⁴	200	Prospective non-randomized	low	low	low	low	serious	low	low
Matsumura et al¹⁹	158	Prospective non-randomized	low	low	low	low	serious	low	low
Fairman et al²⁰	160	Prospective non-randomized	low	low	low	low	low	low	low
Foley et al²¹	195	Prospective non-randomized	low	low	low	low	moderate	low	low
Kasirajan et al¹³	421	Prospective non-randomized	low	low	low	low	low	low	low

However, bias due to missing data was serious in 54.5% (6/11) of trials, as only a minority of patients achieved maximal FU in the trial (Table 4). In 1 trial, where >50% of patients achieved maximal FU, bias due to missing data was moderate (Table 4). Accordingly, the overall bias of trials included in the analysis was predominantly serious (54.5%, 6/11). Only 36.4% (4/11) of trials presented a low risk of overall bias (Table 4).

Incidence of EM

Eleven trials reported migration rates. The pooled migration rate was 4% (95% CI, 2%–7%; range, 0.2%–11%; I²=82%; Figure 2). The heterogeneity, however, was significant (I²=82, p<0.01), likely due to an inconsistent protocol for assessment of endograft position. Only Geisbüsch et al⁵ reported the per-standard assessment using primary and secondary analysis and dual reference point assessment for the proximal and distal ends of the endograft.

Figure 2.

Pooled migration rate. CI, confidence interval.

Figure 3.

Pooled morbidity rate. CI, confidence interval.

Figure 4.

Pooled reintervention rate. CI, confidence interval.

Figure 5.

Pooled mortality rate. CI, confidence interval.

EM-Related Morbidity

The morbidity due to EM was reported in 10 trials.^{4,5,13–17,19–21} The pooled EM-related morbidity rate was 31% (95% CI, 12%–59%; range, 0%–100%; I²=64%; Figure 3), showing moderate heterogeneity of data (I²=64, p=0.93).

EM-Related Reintervention

Ten trials reported on reintervention due to EM.^{4,5,13–17,19–21} The pooled reintervention rate due to EM was 32% (95% CI, 15%–56%; range, 0%–100%; I²=55%; Figure 4). Similarly, to the pooled EM-related morbidity rate, the data showed moderate heterogeneity (I²=55%, p=0.63).

EM-Related Mortality

Nine trials reported mortality rates due to EM with a pooled mortality rate of 5% (95% CI, 1%–21%; range, 0%–40%; I²=24%; Figure 5).^{4,5,14–17,19–21} Cumulative data showed low heterogeneity (I²=24%, p=0.87).

Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, pooled estimates of late endograft migration after TEVAR are available for the first time in a group of 1783 patients presenting 70 EMs.

The pooled migration rates were shown to be 4% (95% CI, 2%–7%). The earliest studies reported EM rates up to 30%. However, these rates were observed with first-generation devices, different methods of assessment of endograft position, and diverse definitions of EM.^6,22,23 After publishing the definition of EM in 2010, trials using contemporary endografts reported improved TEVAR performance with EM rates up to 8%.^5,19,24

However, very few trials used the standard-based protocol of assessment of endograft position, which includes primary analysis of centerline distances between tips and covered parts of the endograft relative to large aortic branches and secondary analysis relative to anatomical landmarks (eg, calc, surgical clips, etc), when endograft movement >10 mm was suspected.³ Among the trials included in the current meta-analysis, only Geisbüsch et al⁵ reported standard-based assessment using primary and secondary analysis resulting in 7.3% of migrations. Other trials failed to report a standardized protocol for EM diagnosis and showed a predominantly lower incidence of EM of between 0.8% and 5.2%.^{14,15,17,18,20} The observed high heterogeneity of pooled data (I²=85.6, p<0.01) was thus likely due to the lack of standard-based assessment of endograft position in all trials included in the current study. Accordingly, despite the fact that the current analysis showed very low pooled EM rates, if the standard-based assessment of endograft position was performed more often, higher EM rates might be expected.

The EM and EM-related mortality are associated with ELs.^5,15–17 Previously published studies reported substantial EM-related morbidity in the EM group, which was predominantly due to ELs.^{14,16–18,25} The rate of EM-related morbidity in the EM group ranged from 0% to 100%, reflecting the rarity of EM in study cohorts and the relatively small size of cohorts. The current study reported 31% of pooled EM-related morbidity rates in the EM group (95% CI, 12%–59%; range, 0%–100%; I²=64, p=0.93) in a large cohort, confirming the leading role of ELs in the occurrence of morbidity due to EM.

Although only a few trials focused on risk factors for EM, some anatomical assumptions could be made. Altnji et al²⁶ used a numeric simulation model and found that a length of the proximal landing zone <15 mm was a risk factor for EM. This was in line with the clinical study of Yoon and Mell,¹⁵ who reported higher rates of EM (2.2%) in the group with a proximal landing length <20 mm compared with >20 mm (0%).

By using mathematical modeling, Liffman et al²⁷ showed that the risk of EM potentially increases after TEVAR for TAA if the overlapping zone is free of thrombotic material while pressure on the endograft lumen and aneurysm sack are comparable and lateral pulsatile friction increases. These results were consistent with clinical results published by Geisbüsch et al,⁵ who identified TAA as a risk factor of EM (p=0.01).

Matsumura et al¹⁹ reported that the quality of PLZ and undersizing were risk factors of migration. Chen et al²⁸ reported high tortuosity as a risk factor for both EL and EM.

In the current study, pooled analysis of risk factors for EM was impossible due to limitations. However, based on the limited data available, short, reversed funnel PLZ, aortic kinking, and thrombus-free large TAA require attention in future EM analyses.

The current literature reported a wide range of reintervention rates (7%–25%) after TEVAR predominantly due to ELs.^29–31 This meta-analysis showed that, despite the rarity of EM, the pooled EM-related reintervention rate (32%; 95% CI, 15%–56%; range, 0%–100%; I²=55%, p=0.63) is higher than the general reintervention rate after TEVAR. Accordingly, based on current data, EM is considered an endograft-related complication that is highly likely to require reintervention.

Endograft-related complications are rare but associated with substantial mortality. For example, endograft infection after TEVAR showed an incidence <2% with a mortality rate beyond 50%.³² Retrograde type A aortic dissection has an incidence of 2.5% associated with a 37% mortality rate.³³ The current meta-analysis showed that, compared with other device-related complications, EM is associated with reduced mortality (5%, 95% CI, 1%–21%), likely due to slow progression, close CTA-FU after TEVAR, and predominantly endovascular treatment of EM and its complications.

The herein presented systematic review and meta-analysis has several limitations. The analysis was limited by the heterogeneous designs (ie protocol, EM assessment) of the included studies as highlighted above. The failed long-term FU data in all studies included in the analysis made the relationship between EM and length of FU inconclusive. Moreover, a pooled analysis of anatomical risk factors was impossible due to missing data.

Despite these limitations, the current meta-analysis for the first time provides reference estimates of EM after TEVAR for further studies, highlighting the need for standard-based assessment of endograft position for accurate reporting of TEVAR outcome, early detection of EM, and prophylaxis of its sequelae.

Conclusions

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study was presented on CX Aortic Vienna, October 5–7, 2021.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Denis Skrypnik

Katrin Meisenbacher

References

Dake

Miller

Semba

, et al. Transluminal placement of endovascular stent-grafts for the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(26):1729–1734.

Riambau

Böckler

Brunkwall

, et al. Editor’s choice—management of descending thoracic aorta diseases: clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;53(1):4–52.

Fillinger

Greenberg

McKinsey

, et al. Reporting standards for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(4):1022–1033.

Beach

Kuramochi

Brier

, et al. Durable outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with Zenith TX1 and TX2 devices. J Vasc Surg. 2017;65(5):1287–1296.

Geisbüsch

Skrypnik

Ante

, et al. Endograft migration after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69(5):1387–1394.

Piffaretti

Negri

Ferraro

, et al. Delayed graft dislocation after thoracic aortic endovascular repair. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2014;12(46):97–100.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

Goossen

Tenckhoff

Probst

, et al. Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018;403(1):119–129.

Mitchell

Ishimaru

Ehrlich

, et al. First international summit on thoracic aortic endografting: roundtable on thoracic aortic dissection as an indication for endografting. J Endovasc Ther. 2002;9(suppl 2):II98–II105.

10.

White

May

, et al. Endoleak as a complication of endoluminal grafting of abdominal aortic aneurysms: classification, incidence, diagnosis, and management. J Endovasc Surg. 1997;4(2):152–168.

11.

Sterne

Hernán

Reeves

, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

12.

Melsen

Bootsma

Rovers

, et al. The effects of clinical and statistical heterogeneity on the predictive values of results from meta-analyses. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):123–129.

13.

Kasirajan

Morasch

Makaroun

MS.

Sex-based outcomes after endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54(3):669–675.

14.

Jordan

Desai

Letter

, et al. Long-term outcomes of the CTAG thoracic endograft in a prospective multicenter trial. J Vasc Sur. 2021;74(5):1491–1498.

15.

Yoon

Mell

MW.

Outcome comparison of thoracic endovascular aortic repair performed outside versus inside proximal landing zone length recommendation. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(6):1883–1890.

16.

Skrypnik

Bischoff

Meisenbacher

, et al. A 10-year single-center experience with the GORE TAG conformable thoracic stent graft in the treatment of thoracic aortic disease. J Endovasc Ther. 2022;29(3):370–380.

17.

Torsello

Argyriou

Stavroulakis

, et al. One-year results from the SURPASS observational registry of the CTAG stent-graft with the active control system. J Endovasc Ther. 2020;27(3):421–427.

18.

Peidro

Boufi

Loundou

, et al. Aortic anatomy and complications of the proximal sealing zone after endovascular treatment of the thoracic aorta. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;48:141–150.

19.

Matsumura

Melissano

Cambria

, et al. Five-year results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the Zenith TX2. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(1):1–10.

20.

Fairman

Tuchek

Lee

, et al. Pivotal results for the medtronic valiant thoracic stent graft system in the VALOR II trial. J Vasc Surg. 2012;56(5):1222–1231.

21.

Foley

Criado

Farber

, et al. Results with the talent thoracic stent graft in the VALOR trial. J Vasc Surg. 2012;56(5):1214–1221.

22.

Resch

Koul

Dias

, et al. Changes in aneurysm morphology and stent-graft configuration after endovascular repair of aneurysms of the descending thoracic aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;122(1):47–52.

23.

Kudo

Kuratani

Shimamura

, et al. Determining the optimal proximal landing zone for TEVAR in the aortic arch: comparing the occurrence of the bird-beak phenomenon in zone 0 vs zones 1 and 2. J Endovasc Ther. 2020;27(3):368–376.

24.

Hassoun

Mitchell

Makaroun

, et al. Aortic neck morphology after endovascular repair of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2006;43(1):26–31.

25.

Torsello

Osada

, et al. Midterm results from the TRAVIATA registry: treatment of thoracic aortic disease with the valiant stent graft. J Endovasc Ther. 2010;17(2):137–150.

26.

Altnji

Bou-Saïd

Walter-Le Berre

Morphological and stent design risk factors to prevent migration phenomena for a thoracic aneurysm: a numerical analysis. Med Eng Phys. 2015;37(1):23–33.

27.

Liffman

Sutalo

Lawrence-Brown

, et al. Movement and dislocation of modular stent-grafts due to pulsatile flow and the pressure difference between the stent-graft and the aneurysm sac. J Endovasc Ther. 2006;13(1):51–61.

28.

Chen

Liang

Chang

, et al. Impact on outcomes by measuring tortuosity with reporting standards for thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(4):937–944.

29.

Zhang

Zhao

Chen

, et al. Reintervention after endovascular repair for aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(5):1279–1288.

30.

Bischoff

Ante

Meisenbacher

, et al. Outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63(5):1170–1181.

31.

Fairman

Beck

Malas

, et al. Reinterventions in the modern era of thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71(2):408–422.

32.

Chiesa

Melissano

Marone

, et al. Aorto-oesophageal and aortobronchial fistulae following thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a national survey. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;39(3):273–279.

33.

Chen

Zhang

Liu

, et al. Retrograde type A aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(9):e004649.

Late Endograft Migration After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose:

Materials and Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Clinical Impact

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Protocol and Registration

Eligibility Criteria

Information Sources

Search Strategy

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Outcomes and Definitions

Quality Assessment

Statistical Analysis

Results

Study Selection

Study Characteristics

Risk-of-Bias Assessment

Incidence of EM

EM-Related Morbidity

EM-Related Reintervention

EM-Related Mortality

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References