EVAR In Patients Research Articles

The Outcome of Fenestrated and Branched EVAR in Patients With Narrow Aortic Bifurcation

The Outcome of Fenestrated and Branched EVAR in Patients With Narrow Aortic Bifurcation

Local or general anesthesia for EVAR in patients with ruptured AAA?

Local or general anesthesia for EVAR in patients with ruptured AAA?

Endovascular aneurysm repair offers a survival advantage and is cost-effective compared with conservative management in patients physiologically unfit for open repair

ObjectiveThe endovascular aneurysm repair-2 (EVAR-2) trial suggested that EVAR in patients unfit for open surgical repair (OSR) failed to provide a significant overall survival advantage compared with conservative management. The aim is to compare survival and cost-effectiveness in patients with poor cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) metrics who underwent EVAR or were managed conservatively. MethodsA prospective database of all CPETs (1435 patients) performed to assess preoperative fitness for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair was maintained. A total of 350 patients deemed unfit for OSR underwent EVAR or were managed conservatively. A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis incorporating age, gender, anaerobic threshold, and aneurysm size was used to compare survival. Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the economic model for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guideline on abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment. ResultsPropensity matching produced 122 pairs of patients in the EVAR and conservative management groups. The median overall survival for the EVAR group was significantly longer than that for the conservative management group (84 vs 30 months, P < .001). One-, three-, and five-year mortality in the EVAR group was 7%, 40%, and 68%, respectively, compared with 25%, 68%, and 82% in the conservative management group, all P < .001. The increment cost-effectiveness ratio for EVAR was £8023 (US$11,644) per quality-adjusted life year gained compared with £430,602 (US$624,967) in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline, which is based on EVAR-2 results. ConclusionsEVAR offers a survival advantage and is cost-effective in selected patients deemed unfit for OSR based on CPET compared with conservative management.

Temporal validation of a prognostic model for mortality of patients with AAA treated with EVAR

Abstract Objective The role of EVAR in patients with asymptomatic AAA not suitable for open surgical repair has been questioned. The aim of this study was to temporally validate a previously published predictive model for survival after EVAR in asymptomatic AAA. Methods This retrospective observational cohort study included all consecutive patients treated with standard EVAR for asymptomatic AAA at a tertiary center between 2001 and 2020. A predictive Cox model for survival after EVAR in patients treated between 2001 and 2012 (Cohort A) has been published but not yet implemented. Older age, lower eGFR, and COPD were found to be independent predictors for worse survival after EVAR. This Cox model was temporally validated using patients treated at the same institution between 2013 and 2020 (Cohort B) and then updated using the overall cohort. A risk score with four different risk groups was built to predict the 5-year survival and internally validated with resampling methods. Results A total of 558 patients (91.2% males, mean age 74.9 years) were treated for asymptomatic AAA with EVAR. At 5 years, mortality was 35.9% in Cohort A, and 36.2% in Cohort B, p=.102 (log-rank). The original model based on Cohort A was tested on Cohort B and showed moderate to good discrimination ability (Harrell's C: 0.68, 95%-CI: 0.62–0.75). Older age, lower eGFR, and COPD were confirmed as independent predictors for worse survival after EVAR. The updated model showed good discrimination ability (C=0.70, 95%-CI: 0.66–0.75) and was robust in bootstrap validation. The risk score was built using the three variables and split into four risk groups. Patients in the “high risk” groups are expected to have a 5-year survival probability of only 40% (95%-CI: 32–50%), whereas patients in the “low risk” group and have an excellent 5-year survival probability of 89% (95%-CI: 84–95%). Patients in the “low-to-moderate” and “moderate-to-high” risk group have 5-year survival probabilities of 83% (95%-CI: 76–90%) and 68% (95%-CI: 60–79%), respectively. Conclusion Age, eGFR and COPD are independent predictors of survival after EVAR. This predictive model could identify low-risk patients with a favourable life expectancy who would likely benefit from EVAR and high-risk patients with a short life expectancy who may not benefit from EVAR at the current diameter threshold.

The correlation of aortic neck length to late outcomes following EVAR with the Ovation stent graft

ObjectiveEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed outside manufacturers’ instructions for use due to short aortic neck for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is associated with unfavorable outcomes. Newer endografts now have an indication for shorter neck aneurysms that previous endografts do not, but this cohort has yet to be evaluated individually. The aim of this study is to evaluate 5-year outcomes after EVAR in patients with short aortic necks (<10 mm) using the Ovation stent graft. MethodsThe study comprised 238 patients who underwent EVAR as part of the prospective international multicenter Ovation stent graft trials. The main inclusion criteria were AAA diameter ≥ 5 cm, proximal parallel neck length ≥7 mm, neck angulation ≤60°, and bilateral iliac fixation length ≥10 mm. A clinical events committee adjudicated adverse events through 1 year, an independent imaging core laboratory analyzed imaging through 5 years, and a data safety and monitoring board provided study oversight. Patients were divided into short neck (<10 mm) and standard neck (≥10 mm) groups. End points included long-term survival, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), freedom from type Ia endoleak, and freedom from reintervention. ResultsPatients were predominantly male (81%) with a mean age of 73 ± 8 years. Median follow-up time was 58 months (interquartile range, 36-60 months). Of 238 patients, 41 (17.2%) had a proximal neck length <10 mm and would be considered outside the instructions for use with other stent grafts. Baseline characteristics were relatively similar between the two groups. The 5-year overall survival estimates were 77.8% for the standard neck group compared with 59.5% for the short neck group (P = .03). There were no differences in the 5-year freedom from ARM (99.2% vs 100%; P = .7), freedom from type Ia endoleak (96.3% vs 96.3%; P = .8), and freedom from reintervention (77.9% vs 79.7%; P = .7) between the standard and short neck groups, respectively. After adjusting for age and other potential confounders, short proximal neck was associated with a two-fold increase in 5-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.8; P = .04]. ConclusionsThe Ovation endograft performed well in short AAA neck with no difference in 5-year type Ia endoleak, reintervention, and ARM rates. However, short proximal neck was independently associated with a two-fold increase in the risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years. These findings confirm the prior literature on the association of hostile neck anatomy with late mortality following EVAR.

Evar Acute Results in Patients with Hostile Proximal Aneurysmal Neck

About 40% of patients with AAA, due to the anatomical characteristics of the aorta, cannot be candidates for EVAR. Anatomical features that are difficult or unacceptable for stent-graft placement include short or no proximal neck, angular, tapered neck, and vessel diameter that exceeds the existing capabilities of endoprostheses. In patients where traditional surgical correction is not an acceptable option, various technological methods and equipment are used. The observation included 18 consecutive patients with AAA, where EVAR was performed. When analyzing the anatomical characteristics of the aneurysmal sac, 9 (50%) patients were classified as patients with an unfavorable proximal neck of the aneurysm, the so-called “hostile neck”. 4 EVAR interventions were complex (2 patients with parallel grafts), which made it possible to achieve an increase in the proximal infrarenal zone implantation up to 16-20 mm, and supplemented or additional endovascular procedures - in our case, implantation of “Aptus Heli-FX” endoancors in 5 patients. The comparison group consisted of 9 patients with a standard aneurysm neck, where standard EVAR procedures were performed. The main anatomical difference in the groups was the length of the aneurysm neck - 9.8 mm and 36.1 mm in groups I and II, respectively (p - 0,0003). EVAR in the groups were carried out without significant complications and operation death; in the first group, the duration of the operation (p-0,01), the amount of contrast (p-0,03) and the fluoro time (p - 0,01) were significantly increased than in the patients of group II. The postoperative period did not differ between the groups. So the use of modern technological methods allows to significantly expand the indications for EVAR in patients with unfavorable anatomy.

Adverse Outcomes after Advanced EVAR in Patients with Sarcopaenia.

To determine whether low total psoas muscle area (tPMA), as a surrogate for sarcopaenia, is a predictor of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing advanced EVAR. A retrospective review of medical records was performed for 257 patients who underwent advanced EVAR (fenestrated or branched technique) in a single tertiary centre from 1 January 2008 to 1 September 2019. The study cohort was divided into tertiles based on tPMA measurement performed independently by two observers from a peri-procedural CT scan at the level of mid-L3 vertebral body. The low tertile was considered sarcopaenic. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association of tPMA with 30-day mortality and post-procedural complications. Univariable analysis and adjusted multivariable Cox regression were used to assess the association of tPMA with all-cause mortality. A total of 257 patients comprised 193 males and 64 females with the mean age of 75.4years (± 6.8) were included. Adjusted multivariable Cox regression revealed an 8% reduction in all-cause mortality for every 1cm2 increase in tPMA, P < 0.05. TPMA was associated with 30-day mortality (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.96, P < 0.05) and spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97, P < 0.05). For remaining post-procedural complications, tPMA was not a useful predictive tool. TPMA correlated negatively with hospital stay length (rs-0.26, P < 0.001). Patients with lower tPMA were more likely to be discharged toarehabilitation center(OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.98 , P < 0.05). Measurement of tPMA can be a useful predictive tool for adverse outcomes after advanced EVAR. Level 3, Retrospective cohort study.

Непосредственные результаты эндопротезирования брюшного отдела аорты у больных с неблагоприятной проксимальной шейкой аневризмы

More than half of the interventions for abdominal aortic aneurysm are performed using endovascular techniques. However, due to the anatomical characteristics of the aorta about 40 % of patients cannot be candidates for еndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Anatomical features that are difficult or unacceptable for stent-graft placement include short or no proximal neck, angular, tapered neck, and vessel diameter that exceeds the existing capabilities of endoprostheses. In cases where traditional surgical correction is not an acceptable option, various technological methods and equipment are used. The observation included 16 consecutive patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm, where EVAR was performed. When analyzing the anatomical characteristics of the aneurysmal sac, 7 (43.7 %) patients were classified as patients with an unfavorable proximal neck of the aneurysm, the so-called «hostile neck». Two EVAR interventions were complex (2 patients with parallel grafts), which made it possible to achieve an increase in the proximal infrarenal zone implantation up to 16–20 mm, and adjuvant or additional endovascular procedures – in our case, implantation of Aptus Heli-FX endoancors in 5 patients. The comparison group consisted of 9 patients with standard aneurysm neck, where standard EVAR procedures were performed. The main anatomical difference in the groups was the length of the aneurysm neck – 9.9 mm and 36.1 mm in groups I and II, respectively (p = 0,0003). EVAR in the groups were carried out without significant complications or fatal cases; in the first group, the duration of the operation (p = 0.01), the amount of contrast (p = 0.03) and the fluoro time (p = 0.01) were significantly increased than in the 2nd group. The postoperative period did not differ between the groups. Conclusions. The use of contemporary technologies allows to significantly expand the indications for EVAR in patients with unfavorable anatomy. Key words: abdominal aortic aneurysm, еndovascular aneurysm repair.

Can a trainee perform endovascular aortic repair as effectively and safely as an experienced specialist?

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is a technically demanding procedure usually carried out by highly experienced surgeons. However, in this era of modern endovascular surgery with growing numbers of patients qualifying for the procedure, the need to enhance surgical training has emerged. Our aim was to compare the technical results of EVAR in patients operated on by trainees to that of those operated on by an endovascular expert. Between 2016 and 2018, a total of 119 patients diagnosed with an abdominal aorta disease requiring EVAR were admitted to our clinic. Overall, we included 96 patients who underwent preoperative and postoperative computed tomography angiography and EVAR performed either by an endovascular expert (N = 51) or a trainee (N = 45). We detected no difference in the baseline characteristics, indication for EVAR and preoperative anatomy between patients operated on by trainees and our endovascular expert. We noted the same incidence of endoleak type Ia occurrence (n = 2 vs n = 2, P = 1.00), reintervention rate (n = 0 vs n = 0, P = 1.00) and in-hospital mortality (n = 0 vs n = 1, P = 1.00) for operations done by trainees and the expert, respectively. There was no difference in X-ray doses or time between the 2 groups. Despite longer median operation times [112 (first quartile: 84; third quartile: 129) vs 89 (75-104) min; P = 0.03] and in-hospital stays [10 (8-13) vs 8 (7-10) days, P = 0.007] of the patients operated on by trainees, the overall clinical success of EVAR was satisfactory in both groups. An EVAR planned and performed by a trainee need not raise the cumulative risk of the procedure. Trainees who have undergone both mind and hand skills training can therefore carry out EVAR under the supervision of an experienced specialist as effectively and safely as experts do.

IPC17. Ad Interim Results of the Expanding Indications for Treatment with Standard EVAR in Patients With Challenging Anatomies, a Multi-Centric Prospective Evaluation: EXTREME Study

IPC17. Ad Interim Results of the Expanding Indications for Treatment with Standard EVAR in Patients With Challenging Anatomies, a Multi-Centric Prospective Evaluation: EXTREME Study

Onyx Embolization for Occlusion of the Proximal Internal Iliac Artery During EVAR in Patients with Unsuitable Landing Zones in the Common Iliac Artery.

Twenty percent of the patients with AAA have an aneurysm involving the common iliac arteries. Large common iliac diameter can be treated with an iliac branched device or extension of the stent graft to the external iliac artery with occlusion of the ipsilateral internal iliac artery (IIA) to prevent type 2 endoleaks. This study describes and evaluates a embolization technique using Onyx in conjunction with EVAR in aneurysms with poor landing zones in the common iliac arteries. Patients with Onyx IIA embolization during EVAR, identified from the hospital operating code database, constitute the study population. Onyx embolization was performed by injection at the IIA origin. Peri- and postoperative complications were collected from the medical records. Thin-sliced CT scan was performed 1month and 1year after the procedure. Thirty-six patients with complex iliac anatomy and insufficient landing zones (without sealing possibility for standard stent grafts) were identified out of 243 consecutive EVAR treatments during a 13-year period. In seventeen patients (7%), the IIA was embolized with Onyx. Technical success was obtained in all 17 patients, without adverse event or procedural complication. No complication related to the embolization procedure was noted during follow-up. During EVAR treatment of patients with aneurysm involving the common iliac artery, Onyx embolization of IIA is a feasible option without need of selective catheterization of the IIA orifice, potentially preserving important branches of the IIA and simplifying emergency procedures.

Infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair with large device (34- to 36-mm) diameters is associated with higher risk of proximal fixation failure

ObjectiveEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care for infrarenal aneurysms. Endografts are commercially available in proximal diameters up to 36 mm, allowing proximal seal in necks up to 32 mm. We sought to further investigate clinical outcomes after standard EVAR in patients requiring large main body devices. MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database for all patients undergoing elective EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms at a single institution from 2000 to 2016. Only endografts with the option of a 34- to 36-mm proximal diameter were included. Requisite patient demographics, anatomic and device-related variables, and relevant clinical outcomes and imaging were reviewed. The primary outcome in this study was proximal fixation failure, which was a composite of type IA endoleak and stent graft migration >10 mm after EVAR. Outcomes were stratified by device diameter for the large-diameter device cohort (34-36 mm) and the normal-diameter device cohort (<34 mm). ResultsThere were 500 patients treated with EVAR who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 108 (21.6%) patients received large-diameter devices. There was no difference between the large-diameter cohort and the normal-diameter cohort in terms of 30-day (0.9% vs 0.95%; P = .960) or 1-year mortality (9.0% vs 6.2%; P = .920). Proximal fixation failure occurred in 24 of 392 (6.1%) patients in the normal-diameter cohort and 26 of 108 (24%) patients in the large-diameter cohort (P < .001). There were 13 (3.3%) type IA endoleaks in the normal-diameter cohort and 16 (14.8%) in the large-diameter cohort (P < .001). Stent graft migration (>10 mm) occurred in 15 (3.8%) in the normal-diameter cohort and 16 (14.8%) in the large-diameter cohort (P < .001). After multivariate analysis, only the use of Talent (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) endografts (odds ratio [OR], 4.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-17.21) and neck diameter ≥29 mm (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.12-5.08) remained significant independent risk factors for development of proximal fixation failure (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.75-9.11). ConclusionsStandard EVAR in patients with large infrarenal necks ≥29 mm requiring a 34- to 36-mm-diameter endograft is independently associated with an increased rate of proximal fixation failure. This group of patients should be considered for more proximal seal strategies with fenestrated or branched devices vs open repair. Also, this group likely needs more stringent radiographic follow-up.

Complications and Reinterventions After Fenestrated and Branched EVAR in Patients with Paravisceral and Thoracoabdominal Aneurysms.

The application of endovascular strategies to treat aneurysms involving the abdominal and thoracoabdominal aorta has evolved significantly since the inception of endovascular aneurysm repair. Advances in endograft technology and operator experience have enabled the management of a wider spectrum of challenging aortic anatomy. Fenestrated endovascular and branched endovascular aneurysm repair represent two technical innovations, which have expanded endovascular treatment options to include patients with paravisceral and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Although similar in many ways to standard aortic endografts, fenestrated and branched endografts have specific short- and long-term complications due to their unique modular endograft design and their sophisticated deployment mechanisms. This article aims to examine the commonly encountered complications with these devices and the endovascular reintervention strategies.

Rationale for a new registry on EVAR: The EXTREME study.

To report rationale of a physician-initiated study: Expanding Indications for Treatment with Standard EVAR in Patients with Challenging Anatomies, a Multi-Centric Prospective Evaluation - EXTREME.

SS02. Standard EVAR in Patients With Dilated Infrarenal Necks Requiring a 34-36 mm Endograft Is Associated With Increased Risk of Type Ia Endoleak and Stent Migration

SS02. Standard EVAR in Patients With Dilated Infrarenal Necks Requiring a 34-36 mm Endograft Is Associated With Increased Risk of Type Ia Endoleak and Stent Migration

Standard endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with wide infrarenal aneurysm necks is associated with increased risk of adverse events

ObjectiveEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has progressively expanded to treat more challenging anatomies. Although EVAR in patients with wide infrarenal necks has been reported with acceptable results, there is still controversy regarding the longer-term outcomes. Our aim is to determine the impact of infrarenal neck diameter on midterm outcome following EVAR with a single endograft with suprarenal fixation. MethodsA retrospective case-control study was designed using data from a prospective multicenter database. Patients who electively underwent standard EVAR with an Endurant stent graft (Medtronic Ave, Santa Rosa, Calif) for a degenerative abdominal aortic aneurysm from January 2008 to December 2012 in three high-volume centers in The Netherlands were included. All measurements were obtained using dedicated reconstruction software and center-lumen line reconstruction. Patients with an infrarenal neck diameter of ≥30 mm were compared with patients with a neck diameter of <30 mm. The primary end point was freedom from neck-related adverse events (a composite of type Ia endoleak, neck-related secondary intervention, and endograft migration). Secondary end points were primary clinical success, type Ia endoleak, neck-related reinterventions, endoleaks, and aneurysm-related secondary interventions. ResultsFour-hundred twenty-seven patients were included. Seventy-four patients (17.3%) with a neck diameter of ≥30 mm were compared with a control group of 353 patients. There were no significant differences at baseline between groups including demographics, comorbidities, baseline aneurysm diameter, infrarenal neck length, suprarenal angulation, or infrarenal neck angulation. Median stent graft oversizing was 12.5% (7.9-16.1) and 16.6% (12.0-23.1) in the ≥30-mm neck-diameter and control groups, respectively (P < .001). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (1.2-4.7) and 4.1 years (2.7-5.6) for the large neck and control groups, respectively (P < .001). Type Ia endoleaks occurred in 17 patients (4.0%) and were significantly more frequent in patients with ≥30-mm neck diameter (9.5% vs 2.8%; P = .005). Neck-related secondary interventions were performed in 20 patients (4.7%) and were also more common among patients with neck diameters of ≥30 mm (9.5% vs 3.7%; P = .04). The 4-year freedom from neck-related adverse events were 75% and 95% for the large neck and control groups, respectively (P < .001). On multivariable regression analysis, infrarenal neck diameter of ≥30 mm was an independent risk factor for neck-related adverse events (odds ratio [OR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-9.1), type Ia endoleak (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.0-8.3), and neck-related secondary interventions (OR, 3.2, 95% CI, 1.1-9.2). ConclusionsEVAR in patients with large diameter necks is associated with an increased risk of neck-related adverse events in midterm follow-up. This may influence the clinical decision regarding choice of repair and toward a more intensive surveillance following EVAR in these patients in the long term.

SS31. Long-Term Outcomes of the Pythagoras U.S. Clinical Trial of the Aorfix Endograft for EVAR in Patients With Highly Angulated Aortic Necks

SS31. Long-Term Outcomes of the Pythagoras U.S. Clinical Trial of the Aorfix Endograft for EVAR in Patients With Highly Angulated Aortic Necks

Selective Intra-procedural AAA sac Embolization During EVAR Reduces the Rate of Type II Endoleak

The pre-treatment presence of at least six efferent patent vessels (EPV) from the AAA sac and/or AAA thrombus volume ratio (VR%) <40% are considered to be positive predictive factors for persistent type II endoleak (ELIIp). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of sac embolization during EVAR in patients with pre-operative morphological risk factors (p-MRF) for ELIIp. Patients undergoing EVAR and intra-procedural AAA sac embolization (Group A, 2012-2013) were retrospectively selected and compared with a control group of patients with the same p-MRF, who underwent EVAR without intra-procedural sac embolization (Group B, 2008-2010). The presence of ELIIp was evaluated by duplex ultrasound at 0 and 6 months, and by contrast enhanced ultrasound at 12 months. The association between AAA diameter, age, COPD, smoking, anticoagulant therapy, and AAA sac embolization with ELIIp was evaluated using multiple logistic regression. The primary endpoint was the effectiveness of the intra-procedural AAA sac embolization for ELIIp prevention. Secondary endpoints were AAA sac evolution and freedom from ELIIp and embolization related re-interventions at 6-12 months. Seventy patients were analyzed: 26 Group A and 44 Group B; the groups were homogeneous for clinical/morphological characteristics. In Group A the median number of coils positioned in AAA sac was 4.1 (IQR 1). There were no complications related to the embolization procedures. A significantly lower number of ELIIp was detected in Group A than in Group B (8/26 vs. 33/44, respectively, p<.001) at discharge, and this was confirmed at 6-12 months (7/26 vs. 30/44 respectively, p=.001, and 5/25 vs. 32/44, respectively, p<.001). On multivariate analysis, intra-procedural AAA sac embolization was the only factor independently associated with freedom from ELIIp at 6 (OR 0.196, 95% CI 0.06-0.63; p=.007) and 12 months (OR 0.098, 95% CI 0.02-0.35; p<.001). No differences in median AAA sac diameter shrinkage were detected between the two groups at 6-12 months (p=.42 and p=.58, respectively). Freedom from ELIIp related and embolization related re-interventions was 100% in both groups, at 6 and 12 months. Selective intra-procedural AAA sac embolization in patients with p-MRF is safe and could be an effective method to reduce ELIIp. Further studies are mandatory to support these results at long-term follow up.

Are abdominal aortic aneurysms with hostile neck really unsuitable for EVAR? Our experience.

To evaluate the effectiveness of endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms with hostile neck, comparing the results with those of patients with ideal anatomical conditions. From January 2005 to December 2013, 300 patients were treated with EVAR at our institution. Patients with a prior Angio-CT scan were included in the study and they were then retrospectively divided into two groups: patients with suitable anatomy that were treated within guidelines of the manufacturers (wIFU: 94 patients, four treated in emergency) and those with unsuitable anatomy that were treated outside of said guidelines (oIFU: 70 patients, 16 treated in emergency). Patients without prior CT study and without follow-up were excluded from the study. Postoperative mortality was 6.3% in the wIFU group while it was 7.8% in the oIFU group. There was not a statistically significant difference in the rate of postoperative mortality (p=0.653). Technical success was 98.6% in the wIFU group while it was 94.5% in the oIFU group. All the patients of the wIFU group were treated with a stent-graft with under-renal sealing while in the oIFU group always an over-renal stent-graft was used. No deaths related to the aneurysm were highlighted at follow-up in both groups. There was a statistically significative difference between the two groups regarding intraoperative occlusion of renal arteries (wIFU=1.1%; oIFU=4.7%; p<0.05) and in the development of type I endoleak (wIFU=2.8%; oIFU=8.8%; p<0.05) CONCLUSION: EVAR in patients with hostile neck is feasible and effective with an acceptable rate of complications.

Results of EVAR in patients Followed up for at Least eight Years

To evaluate the results of EVAR in patients followed-up for at least eight years.