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 Citations (Scopus)

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 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Equipment Failure
Incidence
Transplants

Keywords

  • Endovascular aneurysm repair
  • Secondary interventions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Secondary interventions after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. / Lalka, Stephen; Dalsing, Michael; Cikrit, Dolores; Sawchuk, Alan; Shafique, Shoaib; Nachreiner, Ryan; Pandurangi, Keshav.

In: American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 190, No. 5, 11.2005, p. 787-794.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lalka, Stephen ; Dalsing, Michael ; Cikrit, Dolores ; Sawchuk, Alan ; Shafique, Shoaib ; Nachreiner, Ryan ; Pandurangi, Keshav. / Secondary interventions after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. In: American Journal of Surgery. 2005 ; Vol. 190, No. 5. pp. 787-794.
@article{5a2d9289b4484b2fbf340669459a560c,
title = "Secondary interventions after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair",
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.",
keywords = "Endovascular aneurysm repair, Secondary interventions",
author = "Stephen Lalka and Michael Dalsing and Dolores Cikrit and Alan Sawchuk and Shoaib Shafique and Ryan Nachreiner and Keshav Pandurangi",
year = "2005",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.021",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "190",
pages = "787--794",
journal = "American Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0002-9610",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Secondary interventions after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

AU - Lalka, Stephen

AU - Dalsing, Michael

AU - Cikrit, Dolores

AU - Sawchuk, Alan

AU - Shafique, Shoaib

AU - Nachreiner, Ryan

AU - Pandurangi, Keshav

PY - 2005/11

Y1 - 2005/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Endovascular aneurysm repair

KW - Secondary interventions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=26844480731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=26844480731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.021

DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.021

M3 - Article

VL - 190

SP - 787

EP - 794

JO - American Journal of Surgery

JF - American Journal of Surgery

SN - 0002-9610

IS - 5

ER -