Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 2, 2026

08:51
A New Murine Model of Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair
Published on: July 7, 2013
14.9K
Third- versus Second-Generation Stent Graft for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Device-Specific Analysis
Marco Bergonti1, Giovanni Teruzzi2, Giulia Santagostino1
1Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Annals of Vascular Surgery
|May 9, 2017
Summary
The third-generation C3 Excluder device for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) significantly reduces procedure time and radiation exposure compared to the second-generation SIM-PULL system. Outcomes remain comparable despite increased patient comorbidities and complex anatomy with the C3 device.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Medical Devices
- Endovascular Interventions
Background:
- Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a common treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
- The Excluder endograft has undergone generational improvements to enhance procedural efficiency and patient outcomes.
- Comparing different generations of endografts is crucial for optimizing EVAR techniques.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the procedural and long-term outcomes of the second-generation Excluder (ExSP) with the third-generation Excluder (ExC3) endografts.
- To evaluate intraprocedural data, including procedure time, fluoroscopy duration, and radiation dose.
- To assess the efficacy of the C3 delivery system in complex EVAR cases.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective single-center comparative study of elective EVAR procedures using Excluder endografts from May 2008 to December 2015.
- Patients were categorized based on the endograft generation used (ExSP vs. ExC3).
- Subgroup analysis of complex procedures was performed according to International Standards, with preliminary and primary endpoints focusing on early/mid-term outcomes and procedural data, respectively.
Main Results:
- The study included 64 patients (24 ExSP, 40 ExC3) with a mean follow-up of 31.6 months.
- The ExC3 group presented with more risk factors, comorbidities, and unfavorable anatomy.
- Significantly shorter procedure duration (120 vs. 151 min overall, 129 vs. 173 min complex) and reduced fluoroscopy time/radiation exposure (24,084 vs. 32,548 cGy/cm² overall, 26,770 vs. 41,104 cGy/cm² complex) were observed with ExC3.
Conclusions:
- The third-generation C3 Excluder significantly reduces procedural time and radiation exposure compared to the second-generation ExSP device.
- EVAR outcomes with the C3 Excluder are comparable to the previous generation, even in patients with higher comorbidity and anatomical complexity.
- Further long-term follow-up studies are warranted to fully assess the performance of the C3 Excluder.

