Secondary Interventions and Long-term Follow-up after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Anna C. M. Geraedts, Sana Mulay, Anco Vahl, Willem Wisselink, Mark J. W. Koelemay, Ron Balm

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Early morbidity and mortality are low after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR), but secondary interventions and late complications are common. The aim of the present multicenter cohort study is to detail the frequency and indication for interventions after EVAR and the impact on long-term survival. Methods: A retrospective multicenter cohort study of secondary interventions after elective EVAR for an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm was conducted. Consecutive patients (n = 349) undergoing EVAR between January 2007 and January 2012 were analyzed, with long-term follow-up until December 2018. Those requiring intervention were classified in accordance with the indications and specific nature of the intervention and treatment. The primary study end point was overall survival classified for patients with and without intervention. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate overall survival for those who did and who did not undergo secondary interventions. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression were performed to identify independent variables associated with mortality. Results: Some 56 patients (16%) underwent 72 secondary interventions after EVAR during a median (interquartile range) follow-up period of 53.2 months (60.1). Some 45 patients (80.4%) underwent one intervention. Indications for intervention included mainly endograft kinking/outflow obstruction and type II endoleak. An endovascular technique was used in 40.3% of interventions. Median time to secondary intervention was 24.1 months. In 93 patients with abnormalities on imaging, no intervention was performed mainly because the abnormality had disappeared on follow-up imaging (43%). Kaplan-Meier curves showed no difference in survival for patients with and without secondary interventions (P = 0.153). Age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.089, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.063–1.116), ASA classification (ASA III, IV HR: 1.517, 95% CI: 1.056–2.178) were significantly related to mortality. Conclusions: Secondary intervention rates are still considerable after EVAR. Endograft kinking/outflow obstruction and endoleak type II are the most common indications for a secondary intervention. Secondary interventions did not adversely affect long-term overall survival after EVAR.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)381-391
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of Vascular Surgery
Volume71
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2021

Cite this