A national census for the off-label treatment of complex aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE

Despite regulatory challenges, device availability, and rapidly expanding techniques, off-label endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms (cAAs) has expanded in the past decade. Given the lack of United States Food and Drug Administration-approved endovascular technology to treat cAAs, we performed a national census to better understand volume and current practice patterns in the United States.

METHODS

Targeted sampling identified vascular surgeons with experience in off-label endovascular repair of cAAs. An electronic survey was distributed with institutional review board approval from the University of Rochester to 261 individuals with a response rate of 38% (n = 98).

RESULTS

A total of 93 respondents (95%) reported off-label endovascular repair of cAAs. Mean age was 45.7 ± 8.3 years, and 84% were male. Most respondents (59%) were within the first 10 years of practice, and 69% trained at institutions with a high-volume of off-label endovascular procedures for complex aortic aneurysms with or without a physician-sponsored investigational device exemption (PS-IDE). Twelve respondents from 11 institutions reported institutional PS-IDEs for physician-modified endografts (PMEGs), in-situ laser fenestration (ISLF), or parallel grafting technique (PGT), including sites with PS-IDEs for custom-manufactured devices. Eighty-nine unique institutions reported elective off-label endovascular repair with a mean of 20.2 ± 16.5 cases/year and ∼1757 total cases/year nationally. Eighty reported urgent/emergent off-label endovascular repair with a mean of 5.7 ± 5.4 cases/year and ∼499 total cases/year nationally. There was no correlation between high-volume endovascular institutions (>15 cases/year) and institutions with high volumes of open surgical repair for cAAs (>15 cases/year; odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.5; P = .34). Elective techniques included PMEG (70%), ISLF (30%), hybrid PMEG/ISLF (18%), and PGT (14%), with PMEG being the preferred technique for 63% of respondents. Techniques for emergent endovascular treatment of complex aortic disease included PMEG (52%), ISLF (40%), PGT (20%), and hybrid-PMEG/ISLF (14%), with PMEG being the preferred technique for 41% of respondents. Thirty-nine percent of respondents always or frequently offer referrals to institutions with PS-IDEs for custom-manufactured devices. The most common barrier for referral to PS-IDE centers included geographic distance (48%), longitudinal relationship with patient (45%), and costs associated with travel (33%). Only 61% of respondents participate in the Vascular Quality Initiative for complex endovascular aneurysm repair, and only 57% maintain a prospective institutional database. Eighty-six percent reported interest in a national collaborative database for off-label endovascular repair of cAA.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimates of off-label endovascular repair of cAAs are likely underrepresented in the literature based on this national census. PMEG was the most common technique for elective and emergent procedures. Under-reported off-label endovascular repair of cAA outcomes data appears to be limited by non-standardized PS-IDE reporting to the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the lack of Vascular Quality Initiative participation and prospective institutional data collection. Most participants are interested in a national collaborative database for endovascular repair of cAAs.