Endovascular stent-graft repair of failed endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Despite high initial technical success, the long-term durability of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) continues to be a concern. Following EVAR, patients can experience endoleaks, device migration, device fractures, or aneurysm growth that may require intervention. The purpose of this study was to review all patients treated with secondary endovascular devices at our institution for failed EVAR procedures. Over an 8-year period, 988 patients underwent EVAR, of whom 42 (4.3%) required secondary interventions involving placement of additional endovascular devices. Data regarding patient characteristics, aneurysm size, initial device type, time until failure, failure etiology, secondary interventions, and outcomes were reviewed. The mean time from initial operation until second operation was 34.1 months. Failures included type I endoleaks in 38 patients (90.5%), type III endoleaks in two patients (4.8%), and enlarging aneurysms without definite endoleaks in two patients (4.8%). The overall technical success rate for secondary repair was 92.9% (39/42). Perioperative complications occurred in nine patients (21.4%), including wound complications (n = 6), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (n = 1), foot drop (n = 1), and death (n = 1). Mean follow-up following secondary repair was 16.4 months (range 1-50). Eighty-six percent of patients treated with aortouni-iliac devices had successful repairs compared to 45% of patients treated with proximal cuffs. Ten patients (23.8%) had persistent or recurrent type I or type III endoleaks following revision. Of these, four had tertiary interventions, including two patients who had additional devices placed. Failures following EVAR occur in a small but significant number of patients. When anatomically possible, endovascular revision offers a safe means of treating these failures. Aortouni-iliac devices appear to offer a more durable repair than the proximal cuff for treatment of proximal type I endoleaks. Midterm results indicate that these patients may require additional procedures but have a low rate of aneurysm-related mortality. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine the durability of these endovascular revisions.