Secondary interventions after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Stephen Lalka, Michael Dalsing, Dolores Cikrit, Alan Sawchuk, Shoaib Shafique, Ryan Nachreiner, Keshav Pandurangi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: One adverse outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR) is a significantly increased incidence of secondary interventions (SIs) required compared with traditional open aortic repair. We present a consecutive series of EVARs using a single endograft to identify the incidence and types of SIs performed. Methods: From February 1, 2000, to January 31, 2005, we repaired 136 AAAs with the Zenith (Cook, Bloomington, Indiana) endograft. All patients met the same strict anatomic inclusion and exclusion criteria. Follow-up lasted from 1.5 to 61 months (median 36). The indications for SI group A were procedural and technical errors, for group B were aortic morphology, and for group C were device failures. Results: Twenty-one SIs were required in 17 of 136 patients (12.5%). Three patients required multiple interventions. Nine patients were in group A, four were in group B, and six were in group C. All but 4 patients required SIs for late (>30 days) complications. Conclusions: Although it is a viable alternative to open aortic repair, EVAR is associated with a significantly higher rate of SIs. To maintain the efficacy of EVAR, patients must be followed-up in a vigilant graft surveillance protocol for life.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)787-794
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgery
Volume190
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2005

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Endovascular aneurysm repair
  • Secondary interventions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this