Mid-term Results of Endovascular Versus Open Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Patients Anatomically Suitable for Endovascular Repair

Abstract

EV is a promising technique. However, with current devices and indications the immediate benefits, mainly less blood loss, fewer cardiac and pulmonary complications, and shorter hospitalisation time, are outweighed by a higher rate of reinterventions to treat endoleak, or to maintain patency of the graft.

Systematic review of recent evidence for the safety and efficacy of elective endovascular repair in the management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

“…Overall there was a trend towards shorter intensive care and hospital stay following EVAR (data not shown). Hansman et al 22 Criado et al 40 Bolke et al 12 Becquemin et al 10 Elkouri et al 62 Garcia-Madrid et al 60 Greenberg et al 63 Moore et al 27 Arko et al 41 Zeebregts et al 61 Bertrand et al 11 Jordan et al 58 Teufelsbauer et al 35 Anderson et al 9 Lee et al Six of the included papers documented the proportion of patients who were considered suitable for EVAR; this ranged from 20·0 to 70·6 (mean 43·1) per cent. The outcome of endograft deployment was documented in 17 studies and was successful in 93-100 per cent of patients ( Table 6).…”

ACC/AHA 2005 Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease (Lower Extremity, Renal, Mesenteric, and Abdominal Aortic)

“…SURVIVAL RATES. Intermediate-term survival rates after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair primarily are influenced by antecedent risk factors, being lowest in series for which high surgical risk was a criterion for patient selection (1164,1170). Again using their scoring system (0 to 3) for stratifying incremental risk, Becker et al (1141) calculated actuarial 1-year survival rates of 98%, 94%, 87%, and 81%, respectively.…”

Aaa Elective Treatment Indication Tactics in Evar Era

“…The best comparision of OS and EVAR mortality and morbidity rates is in the ASA III group of AAA patients and also when we compare OS in ASA II versus EVAR in the ASA III group [13][14][15][24][25][26] . The increased invasiveness of the combined strategy associated with additional open surgery leads to higher, yet acceptable morbitidy.…”