Search

Introduction: Stent-assisted, balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination of aortic dissection (STABILISE) is an extended downstream endovascular management technique for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD), that aimed to achieve complete aortic remodeling. This systematic review aimed to assess the early and mid-term clinical outcomes with STABILISE in the management of TBAD., Evidence Acquisition: A literature search was performed on the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and SciELO databases, which returned 195 studies. Five studies were included. Data were extracted using predefined forms., Evidence Synthesis: In total, one hundred patients with acute or subacute TBAD managed with STABILISE were included. All studies reported a technical success of 100%. Thirty-day mortality was estimated at 4% (4/100) with no further deaths documented during an estimated mean follow-up of 12.7 months (range 12-15 months). Five percent developed spinal cord ischemia and another 5% developed visceral artery occlusions. One case of aortic rupture during time of balloon inflation was reported. Rare complications included delayed retrograde dissection (1%), aortobronchial fistula (1%), and renal failure (1%). One case of disconnection between stent-graft and bare stent was documented. Six percent of patients developed endoleak, predominately type I. Overall re-intervention rate was 21%, as reported in all studies. Complete obliteration of the false lumen in the thoracic aorta was achieved in 99% of patients and in the abdominal aorta in 96% of patients., Conclusions: STABILISE technique carries promising early and mid-term outcomes with high technical success and low mortality and morbidity. Excellent results on complete false lumen obliteration were observed. However, the heterogeneity among available studies' methodology does not permit firm conclusions, and further prospective analyses are needed to study the long-term outcomes of STABILISE.

Introduction: Frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique was developed as an alternative to the conventional elephant trunk (cET) procedure for the repair of complex aortic arch pathology. However, short term results between these different procedures are sparsely described. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare short term outcomes between FET and cET in the repair of aortic arch pathology., Evidence Acquisition: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases were searched for studies comparing performance of FET and cET procedures in patients with aortic arch pathology. The primary outcome of interest was early mortality, defined as 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, and spinal cord ischemia (SCI). Meta-analysis utilizing the random-effects model was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4., Evidence Synthesis: Ten studies, comprising 1481 patients with aortic arch pathology, were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant reduction of early mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97) in the FET group. For neurologic outcomes, no significant differences were noted in stroke risk between both groups (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.83-1.75), but an increased risk of SCI was present in FET patients (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.05-4.10)., Conclusions: FET appears to be associated with a significant lower early mortality, at costs of greater SCI risk. Larger studies are needed to provide confident recommendations towards preferential use of either procedure.

Introduction: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been selectively used for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD); however, not all cases will benefit from TEVAR. A search for high risk clinical and radiographic predictors for complications is ongoing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify predictors of major adverse events during follow-up of uncomplicated TBAD, in order to identify who might benefit from elective TEVAR., Evidence Acquisition: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Statement., Evidence Synthesis: 16 studies were included in a qualitative synthesis and 10 in the meta-analysis. Several risk factors associated to major adverse events have been described, including: 1) aortic diameter ≥40 mm; 2) greater false lumen diameter (>22 mm); 3) patent false lumen; 4) primary entry tear >10 mm; and 5) greater number of false lumen vessels origin. Quantitative synthesis identified an aortic diameter ≥40 mm significantly associated with major adverse events (HR=3.56; P<0.00001). Reporting of false lumen status, aortic diameters and growth, and demographic data was not always congruent with the most recent recommendations by Society for Vascular Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons, published in 2020., Conclusions: Acute and subacute patients with uncomplicated TBAD presenting with an aortic diameter ≥40 mm and solely treated with BMT have an increased hazard of developing major adverse events (HR), making them potential candidates for TEVAR. Remaining risk factors analysed have weaker evidence.

Purpose: To compare changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac volume between endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVAR) performed for ruptured (rEVAR) vs intact (iEVAR) AAAs and to determine the impact of early volume shrinkage on future complications., Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing standard infrarenal EVAR from 2002 to 2016 at a tertiary referral institution. Only patients with degenerative AAAs and with 30-day and 1-year computed tomography angiography (CTA) imaging were included. Early sac shrinkage was defined as a volume sac reduction >10% between the first (<30-day) and the 1-year CTA. The primary endpoint was to compare AAA sac volume changes between patients undergoing rEVAR (n=51; mean age 71.0±8.5 years; 46 men) vs iEVAR (n=393; mean age 72.3±7.5 years; 350 men). Results are reported as the mean difference with the interquartile range (IQR Q1, Q3). The secondary endpoint was freedom from aneurysm-related complications after 1 year as determined by regression analysis; the results are presented as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: At baseline, the rEVAR group had larger aneurysms (p<0.001) and shorter (p<0.001) and more angulated (p=0.028) necks. Aneurysm sac volume decreased more in the rEVAR group during the first year [-26.3% (IQR -38.8%, -12.5%)] vs the iEVAR group [-11.9% (IQR -27.5%, 0); p<0.001]. However, after the first year, the change in sac volume was similar between the groups [-3.8% (IQR -32.9%, 31.9%) for rEVAR and -1.5% (IQR -20.9%, 13.6%) for iEVAR, p=0.74]. Endoleak occurrence during follow-up was similar between the groups. In the overall population, patients with early sac shrinkage had a lower incidence of complications after the 1-year examination (adjusted HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.89, p=0.01)., Conclusion: EVAR patients treated for rupture have more pronounced aneurysm sac shrinkage compared with iEVAR patients during the first year after EVAR. Patients presenting with early shrinkage are less likely to encounter late complications. These parameters may be considered when tailoring surveillance protocols.

Introduction: Open repair remains the gold standard technique for popliteal aneurysm repair. However, the endovascular approach has gained increased popularity. Comparison between these techniques remain crucial to aid the physician choice, yet, data on mid-term outcomes lack in the literature. The present review aims to compare the limb salvage and reintervention rates in these different approaches., Evidence Acquisition: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify publications on endovascular treatment or open repair of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs). Primary endpoints were reintervention and limb salvage., Evidence Synthesis: Twenty-seven studies were selected for analysis describing a total of 5425 patients: 1651 PAAs underwent endovascular repair and 4166 PAAs were treated with open surgery. The technical success rates varied between 83.3% to 100% in the endovascular group and 79% to 100% in the open repair. For endovascular repair, the limb salvage at 1 year ranged between 84.2% and 100%, at 3 years between 88.9% and 100%; and at 5 years between 64.7% and 100%. The reintervention rate at 1 year ranged between 3.7% and 21%, at 3 years between 18.9% and 28%, and at 5 years between 34.5% and 38%. For open repair, the limb salvage varied between 94.3% and 100% at 1 year, 94.5% and 99% at 3 years, and 86.4% to 97% at 5 years. Regarding the reintervention rate, at 1 year was 12.8% and 13%, at 3 years 3.6% and 12%, and at 5 years varied between 15.7% and 30%., Conclusions: Both endovascular and open repair of popliteal aneurysms represent safe options for popliteal aneurysm repair. Yet, on mid-term, open repair is associated with greater limb salvage and fewer reintervention rates. Still, further studies are needed to access the long-term durability of this technique and its suitability in emergency settings.

Introduction: Endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (r-EVAR) sometimes complicates with abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) due to extensive retroperitoneal hematoma, with significant prognostic implications. This systematic review aimed to analyze the incidence of the syndrome and assess the impact of ACS on mortality. Mortality after decompressive laparotomy was also assessed., Evidence Acquisition: Two databases were searched: Medline and Web of Science. The search was conducted through October 2019. The titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were independently reviewed. All studies reporting on the ACS incidence after r-EVAR were initially included. From each study, eligibility was determined and descriptive, methodological, and outcome data was extracted. The incidence was calculated with summary proportion. Odds ratio was used to compare the mortality rate. Meta-analysis was performed with fixed effect model when calculating the ACS incidence in r-EVAR patients and when assessing the impacts of ACS and DL in the mortality rate., Evidence Synthesis: A total of 46 studies were included, with a cumulative cohort of 3064 patients. Two hundred and fifty-two (8.2%) patients developed ACS. The ACS pooled incidence was 9% with a 95% confidence interval of [0.08; 0.11]. Among the 46 included studies, 19 studies reported data on the mortality rate, corresponding to 1825 of the 3064 patients. Of these, 169 (9.3%) had developed ACS and 94 (55.6%) of them died by multi organ failure. Among the 1656 patients without ACS, 328 died (19.8%). The mortality odds ratio meta-analysis was 6.25 with a 95% confidence interval of [4.44, 8.80]. Decompressive laparotomy was performed in 41 patients, decreasing mortality in 47%., Conclusions: ACS affects approximately 9% of patients submitted to r-EVAR, and significantly increases perioperative mortality. Close postoperative surveillance to clinical signs of ACS is vital in these patients.

Objective: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) became an increasingly preferred modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair both in elective AAA repair (el-EVAR) and EVAR of a ruptured AAA (r-EVAR) setting. Ruptured AAAs usually have more hostile anatomies and less time for planning. Consequently, more complications may arise after r-EVAR. The purpose of this study was to compare mi-term outcomes between r-EVAR and el-EVAR., Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing EVAR from 2000 to 2015 at a tertiary institution was performed. Patients with previous aortic surgery, nonatherosclerotic AAA and isolated iliac aneurysms were excluded. In-hospital casualties or patients who were intraoperatively converted to open repair were also excluded. For the midterm outcome analysis, only patients with at least two postoperative examinations (a 30-day computed tomography scan and a second postoperative examination performed 6 months or later) were considered. The primary end point was freedom from aneurysm-related complications (a composite of type I or III endoleak, aneurysm sac growth, migration of more than 5 mm, device integrity failure, AAA-related death, late postimplant rupture, or AAA-related secondary intervention). Freedom from secondary interventions, neck-related events (defined as a composite of type IA endoleak, migration of more than 5 mm, or preemptive neck-related secondary intervention) and late survival were secondary end points. The impact of device instructions for use (IFU) compliance on neck events was also assessed., Results: The study included 565 patients (65 r-EVAR and 500 el-EVAR). Eighty-two patients were treated outside proximal neck IFU, 13 in the r-EVAR group (21.3%) and 69 (14.5%) in the el-EVAR (P = .16). During the index hospitalization, there were more complications (12.3% vs 3.2%; P = .001) and reinterventions (12.3% vs 2.8%; P < .001) in the r-EVAR group. After discharge, median clinical follow-up time was 4.3 years (interquartile range, 2.1-7.0 years) without differences between both groups. Five-year freedom from AAA-related complications was 53.9% in the r-EVAR group and 65.4% in the el-EVAR (P = .21). In multivariable analysis the r-EVAR group was not at increased risk for late complications (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.61; P = .81). Five-year freedom from neck-related events was 74% in r-EVAR and 82% in the el-EVAR group (P = .345). Patients treated outside neck IFU were at greater risk for neck-related events both in r-EVAR (HR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-22.9; P = .004) and el-EVAR group (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P < .001). Freedom from secondary interventions at 5 years was 63.0% for r-EVAR and 76.9% for el-EVAR (P = .16). Survival at 5 years was 68.8% in the r-EVAR group and 73.3% in the el-EVAR group (P = .30)., Conclusions: Durable and sustainable midterm outcomes were found for both r-EVAR and el-EVAR patients who survived the postoperative period. Patients treated outside the IFU are at greater risk for late complications. Surveillance protocols may be tailored according to individual anatomy and IFU compliance rather than timing of repair., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Many endografts are currently available for standard endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Comparison of long-term outcomes between devices might aid in this decision process, but comparative data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to report long-term clinical outcomes of two commercially available endoprosthesis, the Endurant (Medtronic Vascular, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) and the Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) stent grafts., Methods: Patients undergoing standard endovascular repair from July 2004 to December 2011 in a single institution with the Endurant or the Low-Porosity Excluder endografts were eligible. Only patients treated for intact degenerative abdominal infrarenal aneurysms were included. All measurements were performed on center-lumen line reconstructions obtained on dedicated software. The primary end point was primary clinical success, defined as clinical success without the need for an additional or secondary surgical or endovascular procedure. Neck-related events (a composite of type IA endoleak, neck-related secondary intervention, or migration of >5 mm), neck morphology changes, renal function, and overall survival were secondary end points., Results: The study included 277 patients (156 Endurants; 121 Excluders). The median follow-up was 5.8 years (range, 0.1-12.4 years) and did not differ between groups (P = .18). Patients treated with the Endurant stent graft had wider (neck diameter of >28 mm, 27.3% vs 1.7% [P < .001]; neck diameter of 27 mm, [interquartile range (IQR), 24-29 mm] for Endurant and 24 mm [IQR, 22-25 mm] for Excluder; P < .001) and more angulated necks (β-angle of >60°, 26.7% vs 12.5%; P = .004). Oversizing was greater in the Endurant group (16% [IQR, 12%-22%] vs 13% [IQR, 8%-17%], respectively; P < .001). Patients were treated outside device instructions for use regarding proximal neck: 16.7% in the Endurant and 17.3% in the Excluder group (P = .720). The 7-year primary clinical success was 54.7% for the Endurant and 58.1% for the Excluder groups (P = .53). Freedom from neck-related events at 7 years was 76.7% for the Endurant and 78.8% for Excluder group (P = .94). The Endurant stent graft (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-5.8; P = .009) was an independent predictor of significant renal function decline. Neck dilatation was greater in Endurant-implanted patients (13% [95% CI, 2%-22%] vs 4% [95% CI, 0%-10%]; P < .001). Overall survival at 7 years was 61.4% in the Endurant and 50.3% (n = 50; standard error, 0.047) in the Excluder group (P = .39)., Conclusions: This study reveals that durable and sustainable results can be obtained with either of these late generation devices. This finding suggests that careful planning and a tailored device selection taking into account the patient's anatomy are more relevant determinants than the graft model itself to obtain clinical success. The Endurant endoprosthesis seems to be associated with a higher rate of neck dilatation and faster decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to determine the clinical relevance of these findings., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The feasibility of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is often challenged by the concurrent presence of common iliac artery aneurysms, which prevent the attainment of a successful distal sealing. The present review aims to portray the safety and efficacy of two internal iliac artery (IIA) preservation strategies in the endovascular treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms: the iliac branch extension device (IBED) and the parallel graft - "sandwich" technique (PG-ST)., Evidence Acquisition: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify publications on endovascular treatment of iliac aneurysmal disease using IBED or PG-ST. Primary endpoints were freedom from endoleak, IIA branch occlusion and secondary interventions., Evidence Synthesis: Twenty-eight studies were selected for analysis describing a total of 1316 patients, 1169 in the IBED group and 147 in the PG-ST group. The technical success rates were akin for IBED and PG-ST (83.9-100% versus 81.3-100%). The defined primary endpoints were reported by fourteen articles. Freedom from endoleak, IIA branch occlusion and reintervention, at 6 months, were as follows: 82-100% versus 86%, 90-94% versus 88%, and 90-98% versus 87%, respectively for IBED and PG-ST. Later outcomes were only recorded in the IBED group, and freedom from endoleak, IIA branch occlusion and reintervention, at 9 years, were 83%, 81-90%, and 64-75%, respectively., Conclusions: Both IBED and PG-ST have proven to be safe and valid approaches. However, while IBED has established as a durable procedure, mid-term data lacks on PGs performance and further studies are required to attest durability of the latter procedure.

Background: Only a minority of vascular surgeons have personal experience on thoracoabdominal aneurysm (TAA) repair, and even less have performed surgery on these formidable lesions for rupture. Unsurprisingly, when open surgery was the only treatment option available, these impressive pathologies were frequently deemed inoperable and managed conservatively. Endovascular techniques brought new hope in these scenarios, but despite current advances, morbidity and mortality remain high, even in experienced centers., Methods: The authors present a rare case of a patient with a type I TAA, with chronic occlusion of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and celiac trunk (CT), and total visceral perfusion through the inferior mesenteric artery, who survived aneurysm rupture on 2 separate occasions., Results: A 69-year-old man, with multiple known comorbidities such as coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stage 4 chronic kidney disease, presented with acute chest pain and dyspnea. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) revealed a ruptured type I TAA, with extensive left hemothorax. Chronic occlusion of both the CT and SMA were also noted, with all visceral perfusion dependent on an extremely hypertrophic inferior mesenteric artery and associated abdominal collateralization. As the patient was in a predialysis condition, efforts to maintain renal patency were considered unfounded, and, based on this, 2 thoracic endoprosthesis were implanted, extending from the left subclavian artery to the visceral aorta, below the renal arteries. Proper aneurysm exclusion was obtained; the patient survived and was discharged 26 days after admission. He was later observed at 6-month follow-up, where CTA confirmed aneurysm exclusion, with no endoleak or graft migration. After this observation, the patient did not comprise with the next appointed consultations and was deemed lost to follow-up. Five years later, the same patient was again admitted to our institution, with acute chest pain and dyspnea. CTA revealed new aneurysm rupture, secondary to an extensive type Ib endoleak due to total loss of distal seal. Significant mismatch between the implanted thoracic endografts and the healthy infrarenal aorta was noticeable (∼30 mm vs 15 mm). Distal seal was, therefore, reobtained through the implantation of an aortouni-iliac graft and iliac extension, extending from the previous grafts to the infrarenal aorta and landing immediately proximal to the inferior mesenteric artery. The intervention was eventless; the patient survived and was discharged 1 month after admission. Control CTA confirmed aneurysm exclusion., Conclusions: TAA rupture is a dreadful condition, associated with high mortality rates. Visceral vessel preservation is the main limiting factor for technical success. The importance of proper follow-up should always be emphasized., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been increasingly adopted in the treatment of intact thoracic aorta aneurysms (iTAA), offering a less invasive approach with good effectiveness. Women usually present with smaller aortas, while having greater aneurysm growth rates. How sex can affect mortality and re-interventions after TEVAR for iTAA is the aim of this review., Evidence Acquisition: A search was conducted on PubMed databases to identify studies with gender-specific data on outcomes after TEVAR for iTAA. Primary endpoints were 30-day (or in-hospital) and mid-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were 30-day and mid-term secondary interventions., Evidence Synthesis: Nine studies were included with a total of 4484 patients (2707 men and 1777 women). Thirty-day mortality ranged from 0% to 6% in female and from 1.1% to 5.3% for male patients. Three studies reported gender-specific mortality one year after TEVAR, ranging from 12% to 15.2% for female and from 8% to 16.8% in male patients. Six studies were found describing gender-related secondary intervention data., Conclusions: Mortality after TEVAR for iTAA seems to be similar between genders. While there was a tendency for higher mortality in women, specially at 30-days, statistically significant differences were reported in only two studies. Re-interventions rates were higher in men in 4 of 6 studies, probably due to increased rates of endoleak in men, but no statically significant difference was found. Further studies with larger female population and longer follow-up are needed to firmly confirm differences among genders.

Introduction: Common iliac aneurysms are present in up to 40% of abdominal aortic aneurysms and frequently impair distal landing zones for endovascular aneurysm repair. Several techniques have been developed in order to overcome these issues, with different applications and conflicting results. Although long-term outcomes of hypogastric exclusion are favorable, the risks of pelvic ischemia and morbidity rates are high. We aim to review current hypogastric preservation strategies used in the endovascular treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms., Evidence Acquisition: A thorough non-systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed/Medline. Forty-five articles were included, according to their scientific relevance and relation with the subject., Evidence Synthesis: The bell-bottom technique can be used in common iliac arteries with up to 24 mm of diameter. Although apparently effective in the short-term, long-term durability is questionable with reported type 1b endoleak rates varying from 3.4-7.8% and high reintervention rates reported. Iliac branches have better long-term outcomes, with 90.4% patency rates and 91.8% freedom from re-intervention at 10 years' follow-up. Nonetheless, its widespread application is limited by complex anatomies and increased costs. Finally, parallel graft techniques are an effective option for hostile anatomies unsuitable for other techniques. Endoleak due to gutter development remains the biggest limitation for its long-term durability and solid evidence regarding its application is still lacking., Conclusions: When determining the appropriate hypogastric preservation strategy, several factors should be considered. Anatomic criteria, life expectancy as well as physical and sexual activity are the most important criteria. Procedure complexity and cost should also be accounted for.

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms are among the most challenging pathologic conditions vascular surgeons have to face. Endovascular treatment brought the prospect of being able to treat these complex aneurysms with less invasiveness and recent outcomes already challenge those of open repair. Plus, this technique offers a therapeutic option for patients who had none, due to significant comorbidities limiting open repair. Spinal cord injury is a major complication after complex aneurysm repair that dramatically affects patient's quality of life, even if technical success - aneurysm exclusion from circulation - has been achieved. Several strategies to prevent this terrible outcome have been developed, with remarkable success in narrowing down the number of patients who will suffer this complication. This comprehensive review covers how the standard of care for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms has evolved over time, how the understanding of spinal cord perfusion has changed in light of the collateral network concept, the risk factors associated with SCI, and details preventive strategies applied in current practice to lessen even further the frequency of spinal cord injury. Strategies covered go from the traditional adjuncts comprising hemodynamic control, neuroprotective drugs, neuromonitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage to emerging and innovative techniques such as near-infrared spectroscopy, two-step repair, minimally-invasive selective segmental artery coil-embolization, temporary aneurysm sac perfusion, and techniques for earlier pelvic and lower limb reperfusion.

Introduction: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has progressively expanded to more complex anatomies, frequently outside manufacturer's instructions for use (IFU). However, the long term results of off-label use of EVAR remain largely undocumented. The aim of this paper is to examine the long term results of outside IFU EVAR., Evidence Acquisition: English literature was searched to identify publications on long term results for outside IFU EVAR. A follow-up extending for at least 5 years was the minimum required as inclusion criteria. The outcomes measured were: overall mortality, aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), freedom from postimplant aneurysm rupture, aneurysm sac enlargement, type I endoleaks and secondary interventions. Results were compared to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with long term results published (EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE Trial)., Evidence Synthesis: Thirteen studies were included. 7 studies described outcomes associated to a specific breached IFU, while 6 studies presented general outside IFU results. In patients outside IFU, 3 to 8 years estimates of overall mortality ranged from 21.5% to 40% (RCTs:13.7-46%) and ARM from 0-11% (RCTs: 1.2-7%). Five-year estimates of sac enlargement was approximately 43%. Type I endoleak rates for outside IFU (follow-up 5-12 years) ranged from 3.8-15%, which is higher than found in RCT-derived data (6.6-6.9%). Comparable results are seen for postimplant rupture and secondary interventions., Conclusions: The long term results of off-label use of EVAR are scarcely published. Although overall mortality and ARM does not seem to differ significantly at long-term, higher rates of type I endoleaks may be expected, mainly in short necks. However, for patients with severe angulation or high thrombus load in the proximal neck, results of outside IFU EVAR seem to match the results of inside IFU.