Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil: postmarket monitoring, underreporting, and estimating the prevalence of endograft-related adverse events.
E. Chaikof
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/MVA.2002.123759
IF: 4.86
2002-06-01
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Abstract:The introduction of new technology into the clinical arena mandates a careful balance between the need for prompt, universal access to promising interventions and the recognition that further refinements could still be necessary because the assessment of clinical performance may be incomplete even after initial experimental trials have been concluded. This is the case for devices that have received a seal of approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or, for that matter, for new procedures that have gained a sufficient degree of legitimacy in the academic literature to drive their adoption by the medical community at large. It has been a little more than 2 years since the first two systems for the endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms were approved for commercial use by the FDA on the basis of 1-year follow-up data. During the intervening 2 years, more than 20,000 of these devices have been implanted in the United States, despite the fact that implant data exceeding 3 years of follow-up are available for only a few hundred of each of the two proprietary systems. Late complications are now being recognized with increasing frequency, but the extent of these problems and their relationship to device malfunction and deployment, patient selection, or inadequate postoperative surveillance have yet to be fully defined. In this issue of the Journal of Vascular Surgery, Bernhard et al provide a detailed accounting of the reported cases of aneurysm rupture after endovascular repair with one of the two systems that have received FDA approval. In a careful review of 686 patients treated with Guidant/EVT endografts (Indianapolis, Ind) under FDA protocols, five instances of aneurysm rupture were identified, all of which were associated with first generation tube grafts. Two additional cases of rupture have been documented among a larger cohort of patients in whom Guidant/EVT endografts were implanted after FDA market approval was granted on September 28, 1999. In both cases, the aneurysm was treated with a tube graft, albeit a second generation device in which hook fracture was not a contributing factor. Notably, the authors’ analysis of the varying etiologies underlying the clinical failure of endovascular repair is discussed in the context of 40 additional ruptures after implantation of AneuRx, MinTec-Stentor, Talent, Vanguard, or other off-label devices that have been reported in the literature since 1995. As one might expect, most failures were caused by device failure, aneurysm remodeling, and inappropriate patient selection or device deployment, with an overall rupture-associated mortality rate of 50% in the entire collected series. Although aneurysm rupture was most often associated with a type I or type III endoleak, this catastrophic event also occurred among patients who had no discernable endoleak or aneurysm expansion. Thus, in the context of the ongoing debate surrounding endograft efficacy, it is certainly appropriate to question whether, in a large population of treated patients, overall rupture risk can ever be reduced to zero after endografting, even in the framework of a close surveillance program. In certain patient subgroups, such as younger patients who are at low risk for surgical intervention, the mere reduction of the risk for aneurysm rupture in the absence of complete protection may not sufficiently compensate for the acknowledged limitations of open surgical repair. The article by Bernhard and his colleagues clearly illustrates that the potential for a catastrophe exists after placement of an endovascular graft. Of greater concern, however, is the absence of a true measure of the magnitude of this problem within the larger clinical community. Strictly speaking, it would be premature to conclude that clinical failure of any commercial endograft device has been an infrequent event after its market approval. To date, published estimates of the incidence of aneurysm rupture and open surgical conversion after endograft repair have been largely confined to reports that have originated from FDAregulated clinical trials or, otherwise, from highly motivated groups of dedicated investigators. In these series, the treating endovascular surgeons have been uniformly well trained and supervised in device deployment, patient selection, and postoperative surveillance. In many cases the clinical sites were subjected to outside monitoring, the collected data were carefully scrutinized, and the reporting of adverse events was mandated. With these conditions, it has been reassuring to note that the annual reported incidence rate of aneurysm rupture generally has been less than 1%. Ultimately, however, the measured impact of deviceFrom the Division of Vascular Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine. Competition of interest: Dr Chaikof has been paid as a training course director by The Guidant Corporation and his family owns shares in the company. Reprint requests: Elliot L. Chaikof, MD, PhD, Division of Vascular Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, 1639 Pierce Dr NE, 5105 WMB, Atlanta, GA 30322. J Vasc Surg 2002;35:1299-300. Copyright © 2002 by The Society for Vascular Surgery and The American Association for Vascular Surgery. 0741-5214/2002/$35.00 0 24/9/123759 doi:10.1067/mva.2002.123759