The use of the Anaconda endovascular graft in AAA with a severe angulated infrarenal neck is feasible but has its side effects. Most clinical failures occur in the first year. Thereafter, few problems occur, and midterm results are acceptable. Summarizing the present experiences, we conclude that open AAA repair is still a preferable option in patients with challenging aortic neck anatomy and fit for open surgery.

The design features of the second-generation Anaconda AAA Stent Graft System are effective in the treatment of AAAs on mid-term evaluation.

To evaluate the incidence and treatment of limb occlusions of the second-and third-generation Anaconda endografts. Methods: A single-center retrospective study was conducted involving 317 consecutive patients (mean age 76 years; 289 men) who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair for elective asymptomatic, symptomatic intact, and ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with 2 versions of the Anaconda device. From September 2003 to July 2011, the second-generation device was used in 189 patients (mean age 77 years; 169 men) and from July 2011 to September 2015, the third-generation device was implanted in 128 patients (mean age 75 years; 120 men). The rates of limb occlusion were compared between groups and according to compliance with the instructions for use (IFU); predictors were sought in multivariate analysis. The results of the latter are given as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Kaplan-Meier freedom of occlusion estimates for second-and third-generation devices, respectively, was 96.6% and 95.0% at 1 year, 89.9% and 95.0% at 2 years, and 86.5% and 88.6% at 5 years. There was no significant difference in overall occlusion rate between the second-generation devices (p=0.332) or with regard to use within the IFU (p=0.827); however, there was a clinically relevant decrease in the occlusion rate for elective patients treated with the third-generation device (6.4% vs 13.1%, p=0.077). There was an increase in the occlusion rate when the iliac limb diameter was ≤13 mm. In multivariate analysis, the only independent predictor of limb occlusion was a small distal prosthesis diameter (HR 0.732, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.86, p<0.001). Symptomatic nonruptured and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) interventions had an almost 2-fold increased risk of occlusion (HR 1.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 4.11, p=0.078), though this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The Anaconda design has proven effectiveness in AAA exclusion in daily practice inside the IFU. However, efforts could be made to further reduce the limb occlusion rate.

EVAR suitability estimation in a cohort of patients is highly consistent in a group of experienced clinicians. The EVAR suitability estimation at the individual patient level varies substantially between clinicians, however. Aggregating expert opinions in abdominal aortic aneurysm anatomic suitability assessment for EVAR had the opportunity to replace individual clinician decision diversification in a more solid and consistent group decision process.