Search

Objective: This study analysed the progression of proximal aortic neck diameter in patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms, treated by endovascular aortic repair using four different, contemporary types of endograft.Methods: This is a retrospective study of four cohorts of 30 patients presenting with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms and treated with endovascular aortic repair using four different types of contemporary endografts, namely Endurant® (Medtronic), Excluder® (W.L. Gore), Zenith® (Cook Medical) and Ovation® (Endologix) endografts. Patients' demographics and aortic aneurysm measurements, including suprarenal aortic, proximal infrarenal neck and maximum aortic aneurysmal diameter, were gathered from the patients' electronic medical records, pre- and post-interventional computed tomography studies, respectively. Diameter measurements were modelled as a function of endograft type; an interaction test was used to test whether the evolutions over time were different between the four types of endograft.Results: Suprarenal aortic diameter increased over time (P = 0.0235) and maximum aortic aneurysm diameter decreased over time (P = 0.0008) in the four types of endograft. The progressive increase in proximal neck diameter from preoperative baseline up to five years of follow-up was 1.20 mm for Endurant (P = 0.0054), 1.72 mm for Ovation (P = 0.0006), 1.14 mm for Excluder (P = 0.0102) and 2.83 mm for Zenith (P < 0.0001), respectively. Five patients (4%) presented with a late-type 1a endoleak: Endurant (n = 1); Ovation (n = 2) and Zenith (n = 2).Conclusion: All endografts were associated with a progressive dilatation of the proximal aortic neck over a time interval of five years and may be associated with late-type 1a endoleak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is considered an acceptable alternative to open surgery in selected patients. Its feasibility depends mainly on anatomic factors that represent the important predictors of success and the most important exclusion criteria. Poor anatomic patient selection is generally associated with a higher risk for procedural complications and compromised long-term outcomes. Therefore pretreatment imaging is crucial for evaluating patient suitability for EVAR. Multidetector computed tomographic angiography represents the current standard of reference in the evaluation of the abdominal aorta and iliac axis anatomy because it provides all the details needed for selection of patients who are suitable for endograft and the choice of the appropriate device. This report identifies and reviews computed tomographic angiographic anatomic contraindications for EVAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]