Midterm outcomes of off-the-shelf multibranched versus physician-modified endografts for endovascular repair of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Kenneth Han, Hyejin Mo, Shreya Guha, Miju Bae, Carrie Tackett, Sukgu M Han
{"title":"Midterm outcomes of off-the-shelf multibranched versus physician-modified endografts for endovascular repair of complex and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Kenneth Han, Hyejin Mo, Shreya Guha, Miju Bae, Carrie Tackett, Sukgu M Han","doi":"10.1016/j.jvs.2026.03.616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Custom-manufactured fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair devices have demonstrated excellent outcomes for elective repair of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, for symptomatic or ruptured aneurysms, the manufacturing and shipping time render this option impractical for urgent or emergent repair. To address this clinical need, alternative technologies have been developed, including physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) and off-the-shelf multibranched devices (OTSDs). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compare midterm outcomes between OTSDs and PMEGs.</p><p><strong>Design/method: </strong>A systematic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through January 1, 2025. Studies with 10 or more patients reporting 1- or 2-year mortality or reintervention after PMEG or OTSD repair of CAAAs or TAAAs were included. Primary outcomes included midterm reintervention and mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and technical success. Subgroup analyses by presentation and aneurysm extent were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies (11 PMEG, 7 OTSD), including 994 patients (538 PMEGs, 456 OTSDs), were included in the review. One-year reintervention was 11% for PMEG and 12% for OTSD (P = .966), and 2-year reintervention was 15% for PMEG and 13% for OTSD (P = .820). One-year mortality was 9% for PMEG and 8% for OTSD (P = .714), and 2-year mortality was 11% for PMEG and 12% for OTSD (P = .758). Technical success was slightly higher with OTSD (98% vs 96%, P = .03), and SCI occurred more frequently with OTSD (6% vs 0%, P < .0001). Thirty-day mortality was 1% for PMEG and 2% for OTSD (P = .836). Subgroup analyses by presentation and aneurysm extent revealed no differences in primary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PMEGs and OTSDs demonstrate acceptable midterm outcomes. However, interpretation of comparative results is limited by substantial differences in aneurysm extent, symptomatic or ruptured presentation, and follow-up duration between the cohorts. Both remain viable strategies, with device selection guided by individual anatomy, urgency, and institutional expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":17475,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2026.03.616","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Custom-manufactured fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair devices have demonstrated excellent outcomes for elective repair of complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, for symptomatic or ruptured aneurysms, the manufacturing and shipping time render this option impractical for urgent or emergent repair. To address this clinical need, alternative technologies have been developed, including physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) and off-the-shelf multibranched devices (OTSDs). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compare midterm outcomes between OTSDs and PMEGs.
Design/method: A systematic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through January 1, 2025. Studies with 10 or more patients reporting 1- or 2-year mortality or reintervention after PMEG or OTSD repair of CAAAs or TAAAs were included. Primary outcomes included midterm reintervention and mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and technical success. Subgroup analyses by presentation and aneurysm extent were also performed.
Results: Eighteen studies (11 PMEG, 7 OTSD), including 994 patients (538 PMEGs, 456 OTSDs), were included in the review. One-year reintervention was 11% for PMEG and 12% for OTSD (P = .966), and 2-year reintervention was 15% for PMEG and 13% for OTSD (P = .820). One-year mortality was 9% for PMEG and 8% for OTSD (P = .714), and 2-year mortality was 11% for PMEG and 12% for OTSD (P = .758). Technical success was slightly higher with OTSD (98% vs 96%, P = .03), and SCI occurred more frequently with OTSD (6% vs 0%, P < .0001). Thirty-day mortality was 1% for PMEG and 2% for OTSD (P = .836). Subgroup analyses by presentation and aneurysm extent revealed no differences in primary outcomes.
Conclusions: PMEGs and OTSDs demonstrate acceptable midterm outcomes. However, interpretation of comparative results is limited by substantial differences in aneurysm extent, symptomatic or ruptured presentation, and follow-up duration between the cohorts. Both remain viable strategies, with device selection guided by individual anatomy, urgency, and institutional expertise.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Vascular Surgery ® aims to be the premier international journal of medical, endovascular and surgical care of vascular diseases. It is dedicated to the science and art of vascular surgery and aims to improve the management of patients with vascular diseases by publishing relevant papers that report important medical advances, test new hypotheses, and address current controversies. To acheive this goal, the Journal will publish original clinical and laboratory studies, and reports and papers that comment on the social, economic, ethical, legal, and political factors, which relate to these aims. As the official publication of The Society for Vascular Surgery, the Journal will publish, after peer review, selected papers presented at the annual meeting of this organization and affiliated vascular societies, as well as original articles from members and non-members.