Secondary intervention following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: A single centre experience

Abstract

Aims: we aim from a review of our early and late experience of secondary intervention for technical failures, to examine and describe the impact of endovascular and open interventions. Methods: 108 Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (AAAs) repaired endoluminally between 1995-2001 were analysed. In our early experience, during 1995/96 home made pre-expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts fixed with Palmaz stents were used (n = 26). In our later experience, 1997/2001 Talent (n = 70) or Zenith endografts (n = 12) were used. All cases underwent spiral CT at 5 days and 6 monthly intervals post-op. Angiography was performed when further intervention was intended. All technical failures requiring intervention or not were studied. Results: there were 28 (26%) technical failures identified of which 14 of 26 (54%) occurred in our early experience, and 14 of 86 (16%) occurred in our later experience (p < 0.05). Eleven in all required open conversion at the time of endovascular repair. Our study cohort were the remaining 17 cases requiring secondary intervention, seven were from our early experience and 10 from our later experience. There were 12 endoleaks, including two as a result of graft migration, two graft occlusions, two graft distortions and one graft infection. Overall 10 (66%) technical failures were treated by endoluminal repair and seven (34%) by open methods. However, in our later experience significantly more endoluminal techniques (80%) were used (p < 0.05). Conclusions: technical failure rates were significanlty higher in our earlier experience. Open repair, which was a feature of our early experience, has been avoided over the final 3 years. Instead, endoluminal techniques were used without further morbidity or mortality. Aneurysm rupture has not so far been experienced in this experience.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 26, 287-292 (2003)