Anatomical Suitability For Endovascular AAA Repair May Affect Outcomes following Rupture

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair-First Strategy for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Might Not Be Applicable to all Cases

BACKGROUND

We evaluate the relationship between the hospital case volume (HCV) and mortality outcomes after open aortic repair (OAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of intact (iEVAR) and ruptured (rEVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using a contemporary administrative database.

METHODS

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database for New York (2016) and New Jersey/Maryland/Florida (2016-2017) were queried using International Classification of Disease-10th edition to identify patients who had undergone OAR and EVAR. The hospitals were categorized into quartiles (Q) per overall (EVAR + OAR) volume, OAR-alone volume and EVAR-alone volume. Cox regression adjusted for confounding factors was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 8,825 patients (mean age, 73.5 ± 9.5 years; 6,861 male [77.7%]) had undergone 1,355 OARs and 7,470 EVARs. Overall HCV had no impact on in-hospital mortality across quartiles after (iEVAR) (range, 0.7%-1.4%, P = 0.15), (rEVAR) (range, 20.5%-29.6%, P = 0.63) and open repair of intact AAA (iOAR) (range, 4.9%-8.8%, P = 0.63). However, the mortality rates after open repair of ruptured AAA (rOAR) in highest-volume (Q4) hospitals were significantly lower than those in the 3 lower quartile hospitals (23.1% vs. 44.7%, P < 0.001). When analyzed per OAR-alone volume, the same findings were observed (22.0% for Q4 vs. 41.6% for Q1-3, P < 0.001). Furthermore, in Q4 hospitals per the OAR-alone volume analysis, the mortality hazard was greater for rEVAR (39.0%) than for rOAR (22.0%) (HR = 2.3, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-5.34, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality rates for iEVAR, rEVAR and iOAR were independent of HCV. However, after rOAR, mortality rates in high OAR volume hospitals were lower than those in the lower quartile hospitals, and, at least comparable to those of rEVAR. EVAR-first strategy for ruptured AAA might not be applicable to all cases. Patent-specific, individualized treatment should be the gold standard. For patients requiring rOAR, transfer to a regional center of excellence, when clinical safe, should be encouraged.

Can the Fenestrated Anaconda™ salvage failed competitor endografts? An international frame of reference

INTRODUCTION

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening abnormal dilation of the abdominal aorta that can be repaired either endovascularly or with open surgery. However, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the main treatment modality for AAA due to its more optimal results. EVAR devices can either be standard, fenestrated, or branched, with fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) seemingly achieving superior prospects. Although EVAR is associated with excellent outcomes, it still carries a risk of certain complications requiring reintervention or 'rescue'. Several commercial EVAR devices are available on the global market, nevertheless, the Fenestrated Anaconda developed by Terumo Aortic can be considered the superior device due to the wide range of endovascular solutions that it offers along with its unique custom-made approach, excellent results and its highly promising potential to be used as a 'rescue' device for failed competitor endografts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current study represents a 9-year cross-sectional international analysis of a custom-made Fenestrated Anaconda™ device. For the statistical analysis, SPSS 28 for Windows and R were utilised. Pearson Chi-square analysis was used to assess differences in cumulative distribution frequencies between select variables. Statistical significance for all two-tailed tests was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Out of 5058 EVARs performed using the Fenestrated Anaconda, 2987 (59%) were 'rescue' procedures for migrated Gore (n = 252) and Medtronic (n = 2735) devices. The Fenestrated Anaconda™ was indicated as the reintervention device either due to unsuitable/complex anatomy for the competitor (n = 2411) or based on surgeon preference (n = 576). Overall, the Fenestrated Anaconda was utilised to rescue 3466 (68.5%) failed previous EVARs using competitor devices. Yet, the primary endovascular solution offered by the Fenestrated Anaconda was FEVAR (91.3%), with 112 (2.2%) devices using custom-made iliac stents.

DISCUSSION

The use of the Fenestrated Anaconda endograft as a 'rescue' device to salvage failed competitor devices is well-established in the literature with excellent clinical outcomes achieved. The evidence in the literature also highlights the distinctive custom-made approach that the Fenestrated Anaconda offers which enables it to treat extremely complex aortic anatomy.

Endovascular solutions for abdominal aortic aneurysms: A comparative review of clinical outcomes with custom-made endografts

BACKGROUND

The introduction of endovascular aortic repair has revolutionised the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, replacing open surgical repair for the majority of elective cases due to its optimal morbidity and mortality. Several endovascular aortic repair stent grafts exist commercially, one of which is the Fenestrated Anaconda™ by Terumo Aortic which benefits from a very innovative design, unique custom-made approach and highly favourable results.

AIMS

The main scope of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of endovascular aortic repair clinical outcomes using the Fenestrated Anaconda™ stent-graft and comparing these with its market competitor, Zenith. This review will also examine the evidence in the literature on the Anaconda™'s custom-made approach.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature was conducted on several search engines including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus and Embase to collate the evidence in the literature on clinical outcomes achieved with the Fenestrated Anaconda™ and Zenith including, but not limited to, survival, technical success, target vessel patency, endoleak, reintervention and aneurysm sac regression.

RESULTS

The Fenestrated Anaconda™ is associated with excellent results, including highly favourable survival, technical and clinical success and target vessel patency rates, very low need for reintervention or conversion, and minimal incidence of complications such as endoleak and endograft migration. The Fenestrated Anaconda™ also drives significant sac regression and aortic remodelling. In addition, its unique custom-made approach enables it to treat highly complex aortic anatomy as well as to 'rescue' failed competitor grafts.

CONCLUSION

The Fenestrated Anaconda™ has proven that it is a very safe, highly applicable and extremely effective device used for complex aortic and/or iliac pathology based on its novel design and outstanding track record of clinical outcomes.

Comparison between endovascular aneurysm repair-selected and endovascular aneurysm repair-only strategies for the management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: An 11-year experience at a Chinese tertiary hospital

Objectives

The aim of this study was to review our management experience of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) using an endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)-only strategy, and discuss the feasibility of this strategy.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis of clinical data was performed in patients with RAAAs from January 2009 to October 2020. Our strategy toward operative treatment for RAAAs evolved from an EVAR-selected (from January 2009 to April 2014) to an EVAR-only (from May 2014 to October 2020) strategy. Baseline characteristics, thirty-day mortality, perioperative complications, and long-term outcomes of patients were compared between the two periods.

Results

A total of 93 patients undergoing emergent RAAA repair were eventually included. The overall operation rate in RAAAs at our centre was 70.5% (93/132). In the EVAR-only period, all 53 patients underwent ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR). However, only 47.5% (19/40) of patients in the EVAR-selected period underwent rEVAR, and the remaining 21 patients underwent emergent open surgery. Thirty-day mortality in the EVAR-only group was 22.6% (12/53) compared with 25.0% (10/40) for the EVAR-selected group (P = 0.79). Systolic blood pressure ≤70 mmHg [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.99, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13–22.08, P = 0.03] and abdominal compartment syndrome (adjusted OR 3.72, 95% CI, 1.12–12.32, P = 0.03) were identified as independent risk factors responsible for 30-day mortality. After 5 years, 47.5% (95% CI, 32.0–63.0%) of patients in the EVAR-selected group were still alive versus 49.1% (95% CI, 32.3–65.9%) of patients in the EVAR-only group (P = 0.29).

Conclusion

The EVAR-only strategy has allowed rEVAR to be used in nearly all the RAAAs with similar mortality comparing with the EVAR-selected strategy. Due to the avoidance of operative modality selection, the EVAR-only strategy was associated with a more simplified algorithm, less influence on haemodynamics, and a shorter operation and recovery time.

Has EVAR changed the outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms? A decades worth of experience in an Australian Teaching Hospital

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) are associated with significant mortality, and equipoise remains as to whether patients managed with endovascular stent grafts (rEVAR) demonstrate better outcomes when compared to traditional open repair (OR). This study sought to examine the outcomes of patients presenting with rAAA to our institution and assess the perioperative outcomes and outpatient mortality of patients over the past decade.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted. Patients treated for rAAA between 2010 and 2019 were identified from a search of the hospital database for ACHI and ICD-10 codes for repair of AAA. Demographic, operative and post-operative variables were collected from electronic medical records of identified patients.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were identified, 51 of whom presented with a rAAA. The majority of repairs were rEVARs (59%). Median age was 76 years. Median length of admission to ICU was 3 days, and median length of hospital admission was 10 days. Overall in-patient mortality was 26%, with rates of 39% at 3 years and 47% at 5 years. No significant difference in outpatient mortality was found in patients undergoing rEVAR compared to OR, with rates of 61% at 5 years compared to 65% at 5 years, respectively (p = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes of our cohort of patients undergoing endovascular repair compared to open repair for ruptured and symptomatic AAAs are comparable over the past decade. Given equipoise remains between repair methods, further observational studies are required to quantify benefits of OR and endovascular repairs for ruptured and symptomatic AAAs.

Transition from Open Surgery to Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Rupture

BACKGROUND

To review the outcome before and after the implementation of protocol-based strategy for endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture (rAAA).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a tertiary center during the period 2006-2011. Demographics, comorbidities, blood examinations, perioperative patients' status, and mortality rates were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess the association of the type of the procedure with various factors.

RESULTS

A total of 58 (46 open surgical repair [OSR] and 12 EVAR) patients with mean age of 74 ± 17 years (91% males) were treated for rAAA. However, 39 (11 EVAR and 28 OSR) were operated with protocol-based strategy available. Total mortality rate was 52.6% (10 of 19) initially and 38.5% (15 of 39) after the implementation of a protocol-based strategy. During protocol-based treatment, the survival rate did not differ between the 2 procedures (7 of 11 EVAR and 17 of 28 OSR; P, ns). A 30-day mortality rate was associated with preoperative number of platelets (unadjusted P values, P = 0.013), age (odds ratio [OR] 0.796; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.685-0.925; P = 0.003), and diastolic blood pressure (OR, 1.053; 95% CI, 1.016-1.093; P = 0.005). After mean follow-up of 48 ± 11 months, EVAR patients presented better outcome regarding mortality rate (36% OSR vs. 0% EVAR; P = 0.0464).

CONCLUSIONS

After the adoption of an available rEVAR protocol-based strategy, EVAR and OSR were equally effective during postoperative 30 days. The role of hypotension and age is important on poor outcomes during this period. However, after midterm follow-up, EVAR demonstrates better survival rates than OSR.

Endovascular Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms has Improved Outcomes Compared to Open Surgical Repair

INTRODUCTION

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) remains a critical diagnosis, and research is needed to address outcomes following surgical repair. The purpose of this study was to compare nationwide outcomes for patients who received either endovascular repair (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSAR) for rAAA.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file from 2005 to 2009 was used to identify patients diagnosed with rAAA and treated with either EVAR or OSAR. Those patients with both procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes included mortality, postoperative complications, and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included hospital resource utilization and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

A total of 8480 patients with rAAA who underwent EVAR (n = 1939) or OSAR (n = 6541) were identified. On multivariate regression, the likelihood of dying in the hospital after OSAR compared to EVAR was significantly greater (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.74-2.18). There was significantly greater frequency of postoperative complications after OSAR compared to EVAR (OR = 2.1, 95%CI = 1.86-2.37, P < .0001). Freedom from readmission after OSAR was significantly greater than that after EVAR. Total hospital cost for all services after EVAR was greater than that after OSAR (US$100 875 vs US$89 035; P < .0001), but intensive care unit (ICU) cost for EVAR was significantly less than that for OSAR (US$5516 vs US$8600; P < .0001). Total hospital and ICU LOS were shorter in EVAR compared to OSAR (P < .0001 for both).

DISCUSSION

EVAR for rAAA has shown mortality benefits over OSAR as well as reduced ICU and total LOS. This data suggest EVAR is associated with a greater survival benefit, fewer postoperative complications, and may help improve hospital resource utilization.

Open Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: The Suitability of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Does Not Influence Operative Mortality

Purpose:

We analyze the outcomes of open repair (OR) in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) according to the anatomic suitability for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

Materials and Methods:

We reviewed retrospectively all consecutive RAAA patients who underwent OR from January 2005 to March 2014. All suspected patients underwent preoperative computed tomography (CT). Outcomes were major morbidities and mortality. Multivariate analysis was performed by using logistic regression adjusted by controlled variables; gender, Hardman index, maximal aneurysmal diameter, rupture type, perioperative transfusion requirement, and perioperative urinary output.

Results:

Among 54 consecutive patients with RAAA who underwent OR, 45 patients were included after exclusion of 9 patients (7, suprarenal; 1, infected; 1, inflammatory). Preoperative CT showed 27% (12/45) EVAR-suitable patients. Hostile neck anatomy was found in 88% (29/33) among unsuitable anatomy (UA) (n=33). The maximal aneurysmal diameter was statistically larger (83.1±21.0 mm vs. 68.8±12.3 mm, P=0.032) in the UA group. The 30-day mortality was 28.9% (13/45; 33% vs. 17% in UA group vs. suitable anatomy [SA] group, P=0.460; adjusted P=0.445). UA group had more patients with cardiac morbidity (55% vs. 25%, P=0.079; adjusted P=0.032; odds ratio, 12.914; 95% confidence interval, 1.238–134.675). There was no statistical difference in survival rate between SA and UA groups (74.1%, 74.1%, and 74.1% vs. 60.6%, 55.6%, and 32.4% at 1-, 3- and 5-year, respectively; P=0.145).

Conclusion:

In this study, relatively unfavorable outcomes were found in the EVAR-unsuitable group after OR in RAAA patients. However, unsuitable anatomy did not influence patient survival after OR by multivariate analysis.

Early prediction of survival after open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Background

Scoring models are widely established in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the importance in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) remains unclear. Our aim was to analyze scoring systems as predictors of survival in patients undergoing open surgical repair (OSR) for RAAA.

Methods

This is a retrospective study in critically ill patients in a surgical ICU at a university hospital. Sixty-eight patients with RAAA were treated between February 2005 and June 2013. Serial measurements of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and Simplified Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System-28 (TISS-28) were evaluated with respect to in-hospital mortality. Eleven patients had to be excluded from this study because 6 underwent endovascular repair and 5 died before they could be admitted to the ICU.

Results

All patients underwent OSR. The initial, highest, and mean of SOFA and SAPS II scores correlated significant with in-hospital mortality. In contrast, TISS-28 was inferior and showed a smaller area under the receiver operating curve. The cut-off point for SOFA showed the best performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity. An initial SOFA score below 9 predicted an in-hospital mortality of 16.2% (95% CI, 4.3–28.1) and a score above 9 predicted an in-hospital mortality of 73.7% (95% CI, 53.8–93.5, p < 0.01). Trend analysis showed the largest effect on SAPS II. When the score increased or was unchanged within the first 48 h (score >45), the in-hospital mortality rate was 85.7% (95% CI, 67.4–100, p < 0.01) versus 31.6% (95% CI, 10.7–52.5, p = 0.01) when it decreased. On multiple regression analysis, only the mean of the SOFA score showed a significant predictive capacity with regards to mortality (odds ratio 1.77; 95% CI, 1.19–2.64; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

SOFA and SAPS II scores were able to predict in-hospital mortality in RAAA within 48 h after OSR. According to cut-off points, an increase or decrease in SOFA and SAPS II scores improved sensitivity and specificity.

Ruptured AAA: suitability for endovascular repair is associated with lower mortality following open repair

OBJECTIVES

Perioperative mortality of open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) remains unacceptably high: 30-day mortality ≈ 40 %. This study aimed to assess, quantify, and determine the consequences of anatomic suitability for endovascular repair of rAAA.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of the prospectively maintained database identified patients with rAAA.

METHODS

Preoperative CT scans were assessed for anatomic suitability for emergency EVAR and precluding factors recorded. Demographic information was collected and analysed for all patients.

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients underwent open surgical repair of rAAA. Forty-six patients had preoperative CT scans suitable for reconstruction. Morphological measurements indicated that 41 % would have been anatomically suitable for EVAR. Suitability was associated with lower mortality rates than unsuitability: 0, 11, and 20 % (24 h, 30 days, and 1 year respectively) versus 11, 33, and 59 % (statistically significant at 1 year; p = 0.02). The groups were comparable excepting diabetes incidence, which was higher in those suitable for EVAR (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of patients with ruptured AAA are anatomically suitable for EVAR. Anatomical suitability appears to identify patients at low risk from open surgery. Whether this is due to technically less demanding open surgery is unknown. This may be resolved by the IMPROVE trial results, which are eagerly awaited.

Anatomic suitability for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms and possible benefits of low profile delivery systems

The aim of the study was to evaluate the anatomic suitability for endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR) according to instructions for use (IFUs) of three commercially available bifurcated stent graft devices and explore the possible benefits of low-profile delivery systems. Computed tomography scans of 241 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were evaluated for suitability of Zenith Flex®, Gore Excluder® and Endurant® bifurcated stent graft systems according to their IFUs. The most common exclusion criteria and possible benefits of smaller diameter delivery systems were analyzed. When choosing the most suitable graft model for each patient, the overall suitability was 49.4%. By brand, the suitability was 28.6% for Zenith®, 25.7% for Gore Excluder® and 48.1% for Endurant®. By step wise accepting iliac diameters of ≥6 mm, ≥5 mm and ≥4 mm the overall suitability increased to 56.7, 58.9 and 60.2%, respectively ( P < 0.001). Diameters below 4 mm had no additional effect on suitability as combinations of other anatomical features, with or without narrow iliacs, accounted for the remaining excluding factors. In conclusion, Less than half of patients with AAAs are suitable for EVAR according to current IFUs. Low-profile delivery systems may allow for endovascular treatment in up to 60% of patients.

Women with abdominal aortic aneurysms have more extensive aortic neck pathology

BACKGROUND

The proportion of women with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treated with endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is lower than for open repair (OR). Unfavorable morphologic features for EVAR in women with AAA may explain this disproportion. The objective of this study was to identify morphologic features in AAA patients undergoing elective repair with special emphasis on gender differences.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective repair from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008 at our university's vascular unit were included in this study. Computed tomography (CT) angiograms were analyzed. Morphologic features considered unfavorable for EVAR rather than open repair (OR) included: infrarenal aortic neck <15 mm; angulation >60°; circumferential neck thrombus; neck width >32 mm; iliac arteries <7.5 mm; or presence of bi-iliac aneurysms. Complex aortic neck was defined as a neck length of <15 mm and one or more of the other aortic neck exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-two patients, including 140 men and 32 women, were treated during the study period, which included 99 with OR (21 women, 78 men) and 73 with EVAR (11 women, 62 men). Morphologic unsuitability for EVAR was 44% (75 of 172) and was not statistically different between women and men [47% (15 of 32) vs. 43% (60 of 140), P = 0.70]. Aortic neck pathology was the dominating feature for unsuitability for EVAR (69 of 75, 92%), and 85 of 172 patients had an unsuitable aortic neck. This rate was not different between women and men [19 of 32 (59%) vs. 66 of 140 (47%), P = 0.24]. Iliac unsuitability rates were 11% (19 of 172) and were not different between women and men [4 of 32 (12%) vs. 15 of 140 (11%), P = 0.76]. In patients unsuitable for EVAR, the proximal aortic necks showed more extensive aortic neck pathology in women than in men [8 of 15 (53%) vs. 13 of 60 (22%), P = 0.02]. More men had only short neck pathology [22 of 60 (37%) vs. 1 of 15 (7%), P = 0.03].

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic neck pathology is the dominating cause of EVAR exclusion in both genders. A higher proportion of women have more pathologic neck anatomy. Future development of EVAR devices should focus on the complexity of the aortic neck, which will benefit all AAA patients, but especially women.

Endovascular suitability and outcome after open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has rapidly gained popularity, but superior results may be biased by patient selection. The aim was to investigate whether suitability for endovascular repair predicted survival, irrespective of technique of repair.

Methods

Two blinded investigators independently evaluated preoperative computed tomography angiograms of a consecutive cohort of patients with rAAA. Patients were categorized either ‘suitable’ or ‘unsuitable’ for endovascular repair, if assessments agreed. If assessments disagreed, they were classified ‘borderline suitable’. Correlations between endovascular suitability and clinical outcome were adjusted for suspected confounding factors and tested for robustness using sensitivity analyses.

Results

A total of 248 patients with rAAA from January 2001 to December 2010 were included, of whom 237 (95·6 per cent) underwent open repair. Seventy patients (28·2 per cent) were classified as ‘suitable’ and 100 (40·3 per cent) as ‘unsuitable’ for endovascular repair; 63 (25·4 per cent) were considered ‘borderline suitable’. Fifteen (6·0 per cent) could not be assessed and were included in the sensitivity analyses. The postoperative 30-day mortality rate was 15·3 per cent (38 deaths). Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that the odds of perioperative death increased 9·21 (95 per cent confidence interval 2·16 to 39·23) fold for ‘unsuitable’ rAAA (P = 0·003) and 6·80 (1·47 to 31·49) fold for ‘borderline’ rAAA (P = 0·014), compared with ‘suitable’ rAAA. This selection effect was robust across sensitivity analyses and sustained for at least 5 years of follow-up.

Conclusion

Endovascular suitability was an independent and strongly positive predictor of survival after open repair of rAAA.

Clinical Results of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Renal Insufficiency without Hemodialysis

OBJECTIVE

Chronic renal insufficiency may be a relative contraindication to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for the use of contrast enhanced mediums. It is thought that more contrast enhanced media are needed in patients who are not anatomically suitable for EVAR, because of procedural difficulties. We reviewed a 2 year EVAR experience at our institution to determine whether the procedure and use of contrast enhanced mediums has any deleterious effect on renal function in patients with pre-existing chronic renal insufficiency.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

EVAR was performed in 46 patients with pre-existing chronic renal insufficiency without hemodialysis. Patients were retrospectively assigned to two groups on the basis of their preoperative creatinine clearance levels. Furthermore, patients were assigned to two other groups on the basis of anatomical suitability for EVAR. The absolute change in the serum creatinine (Cr) level was reviewed in the each renal insufficiency group between the preoperative and post-operative time periods.

RESULTS

No increase in the serum Cr level was noted, and no patient required temporary or permanent hemodialysis, in any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR with contrast agents can be accomplished in patients with chronic renal insufficiency without hemodialysis; therefore,elevated Cr levels maynot be a contraindication in EVAR.