title: Mid- and long-term device migration after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a comparison of AneuRx and Zenith endografts.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Freedom from migration is key to the durability of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study evaluates the mid- and long-term incidence of migration with two different endografts.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between September 1997 and June 2004, 235 patients were scheduled for EVAR with an AneuRx (Medtronic/AVE Inc.) or Zenith (Cook) endograft. Patients with fusiform, infrarenal aneurysms and a minimum 12 months of follow-up were analyzed, for a final cohort of 130 patients. Migration was assessed on axial computed tomography (CT) (2.5 to 3 mm cuts) as the distance from the most caudal renal artery to the first slice containing endograft (AneuRx) or to the top of the bare suprarenal stent (Zenith). Aortic neck diameters were measured at the most caudal renal artery. The initial postoperative CT scan was the baseline. Migration was defined by caudal movement of the endograft at two thresholds, > or =5 mm and > or =10 mm, or any migration with a related clinical event.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Life-table analysis demonstrated AneuRx freedom from migration (> or =10 mm or clinical event) was 96.1%, 89.5%, 78.0%, and 72.0% at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively. Zenith freedom from migration was 100%, 97.6%, 97.6%, and 97.6% at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively (P = .01, log-rank test). The stricter 5-mm migration threshold found 67.4% of AneuRx and 90.1% of Zenith patients free from migration at 4 years of follow-up. Twelve out of 14 (85.7%) AneuRx patients (12/14) with migration (> or =10 mm or clinical event) underwent 14 related secondary procedures (13 endovascular, 1 open conversion). The single Zenith patient with migration (> or =10 mm) has not required adjuvant treatment. Mean follow-up was 39.0 +/- 2.3 months (AneuRx) and 30.8 +/- 1.9 months (Zenith, P = .01). Patients with and without migration did not differ in age, gender ratio, aneurysm diameter, and neck diameter. However, initial neck length was shorter in patients with migration (22.1 +/- 2.1 mm vs 31.2 +/- 1.2 mm, P = .02). A subset of patients (21.6%) experienced significant (defined as > or =3 mm) maximum aortic neck dilation. Of the AneuRx patients, > or =3 mm aortic neck dilation affected 30.8% of migrators vs 13.0% of nonmigrators (P = .20).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Endograft migration is a time-dependent phenomenon affected by both device choice and aortic neck length. A great majority of patients (85.7%) with migration of the AneuRx device ultimately required treatment. A minority of patients experienced aortic neck dilation that could be considered clinically significant. Careful surveillance for migration is an essential component of long-term follow-up after EVAR.
authors.affiliation: Section of Vascular Surgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA 70121, USA.
authors.forename: Britt H
authors.initials: BH
authors.lastname: Tonnessen
authors.forename: W Charles
authors.initials: WC
authors.lastname: Sternbergh
authors.forename: Samuel R
authors.initials: SR
authors.lastname: Money
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D017544:Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal / Q000601:surgery*; D019917:Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D004868:Equipment Failure; D005260:Female; D005548:Foreign-Body Migration / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000453:epidemiology*; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D015993:Life Tables; D008297:Male; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012307:Risk Factors; D015607:Stents; D013997:Time Factors; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed