INTRODUCTION: We retrospectively analyzed outcomes of patients who had undergone endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) more than 3 years previously in a single institution. We compared outcomes between patients who underwent EVAR within and outside of the devices' instructions for use (IFU) and examined mid-term morphological changes in AAA. METHODS: A total of 275 patients who underwent EVAR for AAA were selected. IFU parameters included aneurysmal neck length, angulation and presence of massive atheroma. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the Within IFU group (W-IFU: n = 193) and the Outside of IFU group (O-IFU: n = 82). RESULTS: Patients in the O-IFU group were older and had a larger AAA diameter. Other comorbid factors were similar between the 2 groups. There was no difference in overall survival rates and reintervention rates between the 2 groups. The most common cause for reintervention was AAA enlargement 3 years after EVAR. Irrespective of the IFU, mid-term morphological changes, including neck angulation, neck diameter, sac re-expansion, and Palmaz stent displacement, were found. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of EVAR were considered acceptable in the O-IFU group. Careful follow-up is necessary considering the morphological changes in AAAs after EVAR.
INTRODUCTION: We retrospectively analyzed outcomes of patients who had undergone endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) more than 3 years previously in a single institution. We compared outcomes between patients who underwent EVAR within and outside of the devices' instructions for use (IFU) and examined mid-term morphological changes in AAA. METHODS: A total of 275 patients who underwent EVAR for AAA were selected. IFU parameters included aneurysmal neck length, angulation and presence of massive atheroma. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the Within IFU group (W-IFU: n = 193) and the Outside of IFU group (O-IFU: n = 82). RESULTS:Patients in the O-IFU group were older and had a larger AAA diameter. Other comorbid factors were similar between the 2 groups. There was no difference in overall survival rates and reintervention rates between the 2 groups. The most common cause for reintervention was AAA enlargement 3 years after EVAR. Irrespective of the IFU, mid-term morphological changes, including neck angulation, neck diameter, sac re-expansion, and Palmaz stent displacement, were found. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of EVAR were considered acceptable in the O-IFU group. Careful follow-up is necessary considering the morphological changes in AAAs after EVAR.
Authors: Ali F AbuRahma; John Campbell; Patrick A Stone; Aravinda Nanjundappa; Akhilesh Jain; L Scott Dean; Joseph Habib; Tammi Keiffer; Mary Emmett Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: John Byrne; Manish Mehta; Ivan Dominguez; Philip S Paty; Sean P Roddy; Paul Feustel; Yaron Sternbach; R Clement Darling Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Andres Schanzer; Roy K Greenberg; Nathanael Hevelone; William P Robinson; Mohammad H Eslami; Robert J Goldberg; Louis Messina Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-04-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas A Abbruzzese; Christopher J Kwolek; David C Brewster; Thomas K Chung; Jeanwan Kang; Mark F Conrad; Glenn M LaMuraglia; Richard P Cambria Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2008-04-28 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Roy K Greenberg; Timothy A M Chuter; Richard P Cambria; W Charles Sternbergh; Neal E Fearnot Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 4.268