Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in High-risk Patients: a Single Centre Experience

Risk factors for 1-year mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair, although physiologically well tolerated, may fail to confer significant survival benefit in some high-risk patients. In an effort to identify patients most likely to benefit from intervention, the present study sought to determine the risk factors for 1-year mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on prospectively collected data from all patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair from 2002 to 2010 at a single institution. Univariate analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used to identify risk factors associated with mortality within 1 year after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

RESULTS

During the study period, 282 patients underwent at least 1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair; index procedures included descending aortic repair (n = 189), hybrid arch repair (n = 55), and hybrid thoracoabdominal repair (n = 38). The 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 7.4% (n = 21) and the overall 1-year mortality was 19% (n = 54). Cardiopulmonary pathologies were the most common cause of nonperioperative 1-year mortality (22%, n = 12). Multivariate modeling demonstrated 3 variables independently associated with 1-year mortality: age older than 75 years (hazard ratio, 2.26; P = .005), aortic diameter greater than 6.5 cm (hazard ratio, 2.20; P = .007), and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 (hazard ratio, 1.85; P = .049). A baseline creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL (hazard ratio, 1.79; P = .05) and congestive heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.87; P = .08) were also retained in the final model. These 5 variables explained a large proportion of the risk of 1-year mortality (C statistic = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Age older than 75 years, aortic diameter greater than 6.5 cm, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 are independently associated with 1-year mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. These clinical characteristics may help risk-stratify patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair and identify those unlikely to derive a long-term survival benefit from the procedure.

Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm in patients physically ineligible for open repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was originally developed for patients who were considered to be physically ineligible for open surgical repair. Data are lacking on the question of whether endovascular repair reduces the rate of death among these patients.

METHODS

From 1999 through 2004 at 33 hospitals in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 404 patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or = 5.5 cm in diameter) who were considered to be physically ineligible for open repair to undergo either endovascular repair or no repair; 197 patients were assigned to undergo endovascular repair, and 207 were assigned to have no intervention. Patients were followed for rates of death, graft-related complications and reinterventions, and costs until the end of 2009. Cox regression was used to compare outcomes in the two groups.

RESULTS

The 30-day operative mortality was 7.3% in the endovascular-repair group. The overall rate of aneurysm rupture in the no-intervention group was 12.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6 to 16.2) per 100 person-years. Aneurysm-related mortality was lower in the endovascular-repair group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.89; P=0.02). This advantage did not result in any benefit in terms of total mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.27; P=0.97). A total of 48% of patients who survived endovascular repair had graft-related complications, and 27% required reintervention within the first 6 years. During 8 years of follow-up, endovascular repair was considerably more expensive than no repair (cost difference, 9,826 pounds sterling [U.S. $14,867]; 95% CI, 7,638 to 12,013 [11,556 to 18,176]).

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial involving patients who were physically ineligible for open repair, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a significantly lower rate of aneurysm-related mortality than no repair. However, endovascular repair was not associated with a reduction in the rate of death from any cause. The rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions were higher with endovascular repair, and it was more costly. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN55703451.)

Predictors of adverse events after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A meta-analysis of case reports

Introduction

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a life-saving intervention. Nevertheless, complications have a major impact. We review the evidence from case reports for risk factors of complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Case presentation

We selected case reports from PubMed reporting original data on adverse events after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Extracted risk factors were: age, sex, aneurysm diameter, comorbidities, re-interventions, at least one follow-up visit being missed or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient. Extracted outcomes were: death, rupture and (non-)device-related complications.

In total 113 relevant articles were selected. These reported on 173 patients. A fatal outcome was reported in 15% (N = 26) of which 50% came after an aneurysm rupture (N = 13). Non-fatal aneurysm rupture occurred in 15% (N = 25). Endoleaks were reported in 52% of the patients (N = 90). In half of the patients with a rupture no prior endoleak was discovered during follow-up. In 83% of the patients one or more re-interventions were performed (N = 143). Mortality was higher among women (risk ratio 2.9; 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 6.0), while the presence of comorbidities was strongly associated with both ruptures (risk ratio 1.6; 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 2.9) and mortality (risk ratio 2.1; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.7). Missing one or more follow-up visits (≥1) or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient was strongly related to both ruptures (risk ratio 4.7; 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 7.0) and mortality (risk ratio 3.8; 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 8.3).

Conclusion

Female gender, the presence of comorbidities and at least one follow-up visit being missed or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient appear to increase the risk for mortality after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Larger aneurysm diameter, higher age and multimorbidity at the time of surgery appear to increase the risk for rupture and other complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. These risk factors deserve further attention in future studies.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 12 Years of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair (ER) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a new technique, and reported rates of endoleak, conversion to open repair, rupture and mortality vary widely. The aim of this study was to estimate these rates from the published data, and examine how this has changed as more patients have undergone ER.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of publications identified through searches of the electronic databases EMBASE and Medline. All publications quoting endoleak, conversion to open repair, rupture and mortality rates for a series of patients undergoing ER were included.

RESULTS

163 studies pertaining to 28,862 patients undergoing ER were identified as relevant for the review and meta-analysis. The pooled estimate for operative mortality was 3.3% (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 3.6%). The pooled estimate for type 1 endoleaks was 10.5% (95% confidence interval 9.0 to 12.1%), with an annual rate of 8.4% (95% confidence interval 5.7% to 12.2%). The pooled estimate of type 2,3 and 4 endoleaks was 13.7% (95% confidence interval 12.3 to 15.3%), with an annual rate of 10.2% (95% confidence interval 7.4% to 14.1%). The pooled estimate for primary conversion to open repair was 3.8% (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 4.4%), and for secondary conversion to open repair 3.4% (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 4.2%). The pooled estimate for post-operative rupture was 1.3% (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.7%), with an annual rupture rate of 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.5% to 0.8%). Multivariate meta-regression analysis showed that rates of operative mortality, post-operative rupture and total number of endoleaks all fell significantly (p<0.05) over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a low mortality and a gradual reduction in vascular morbidity and mortality associated with endovascular repair since it was first introduced.

Systematic review of recent evidence for the safety and efficacy of elective endovascular repair in the management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

Conventional management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is by open repair and is associated with a mortality rate of 2–6 per cent. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an alternative technique first introduced in 1991. A systematic review was undertaken of the evidence for the safety and efficacy of elective EVAR in the management of asymptomatic infrarenal AAA.

Methods

Thirteen electronic bibliographical databases were searched, covering biomedical, health-related, science and social science literature. Outcomes were assessed with respect to efficacy (successful deployment, technical success, conversion rates and secondary intervention rates) and safety (30-day mortality rate, procedure morbidity rates and technical issues—endoleaks, graft thrombosis, stenosis and migration).

Results

Of 606 reports identified, 61 met the inclusion criteria (three randomized and 15 non-randomized controlled trials, and 43 uncontrolled studies). There were 29 059 participants in total; 19 804 underwent EVAR. Deployment was successful in 97·6 per cent of cases. Technical success (complete aneurysm exclusion) was 81·9 per cent at discharge and 88·8 per cent at 30 days. Secondary intervention to treat endoleak or maintain graft patency was required in 16·2 per cent of patients. Mean stay in the intensive care unit and mean hospital stay were significantly shorter following EVAR. The 30-day mortality rate for EVAR was 1·6 per cent (randomized controlled trials) and 2·0 per cent in nonrandomized trials and case series. Technical complications comprised stent migration (4·0 per cent), graft limb thrombosis (3·9 per cent), endoleak (type I, 6·8 per cent; type II, 10·3 per cent; type III, 4·2 per cent) and access artery injury (4·8 per cent).

Discussion

EVAR is technically effective and safe, with lower short-term morbidity and mortality rates than open surgery. However, there is a need for extended follow-up as the long-term success of EVAR in preventing aneurysm-related deaths is not yet known.

Four-year follow up of patients with untreated abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The data in the literature are still controversial describing the outcome of patients not treated for a large abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) especially with significant comorbidities. We followed up patients trying to establish their long-term outcome.

METHOD

Since 1998, we have prospectively followed all patients referred to our department with AAA. A retrospective analysis was carried out selecting all patients who had an AAA larger than 5 cm, and who declined or were declined for operative repair between February 1998 and November 2001.

RESULTS

One hundred and eleven patients were included in the present study. There were 78 men and 33 women. The mean age was 80 years. At the end of the study, 65 patients (59%) were deceased. Ruptured aneurysm occurred in 27 patients (median time to rupture = 14 months) with one patient surviving an emergency repair. Thirty-nine patients died from unrelated illnesses. In the 5-5.9 cm AAA group (n = 58), out of 31 deceased patients, five (16%) have died of ruptured AAA. In the 6 cm and larger AAA group (n = 53), out of 34 deceased patients, 21 (62%) have died of ruptured AAA. There was no significant difference in survival between patients with AAA below and above 6 cm in diameter (P = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

In the presence of significant comorbidities, most patients with AAA less than 6 cm died from unrelated illnesses. In the larger AAA group, the likelihood of death from AAA rupture or unrelated illnesses is almost equal.

Effect of ethnicity on access and device complications during endovascular aneurysm repair

INTRODUCTION

There are no published reports on the association between ethnicity and outcome after aortoiliac stent grafting to treat aneurismal disease. Because Hawaii is a state with an ethnically diverse population, we conducted a retrospective study to examine this potential association. We hypothesized that individuals of Asian ancestry may have higher complication rates after endovascular repair compared with non-Asians.

METHODS

All endovascular devices placed to treat aneurysm disease from 1996 to 2003 were evaluated in two institutions. The association between ethnicity and access-related and device-related complications, both periprocedural and delayed, was examined with logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Ninety-two aortoiliac endografts were placed during the study period, including 87 in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms with or without iliac aneurysm disease, and five patients with isolated iliac artery aneurysms. Forty-four percent of patients were categorized as Asian, 39% as white, 16% as Pacific Islander, and 1% as African American. Access-related and device-related complications (ADRCs) occurred in 11 of 92 (12%) of these patients. The following parameters were significantly associated with ADRCs: Asian ethnicity (P =.015), age greater than 80 years (P =.02), and external iliac diameter smaller than 7.5 mm (P =.01). Asian patients were more likely to have experienced ADRCs than were non-Asian patients (odds ratio, 7.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-35.8; P =.015). Asians also had smaller external iliac artery diameters (P =.0003) and more tortuous iliac arteries (P =.03) compared with non-Asians. After adjusting for iliac artery diameter and tortuosity, the association between Asian ethnicity and ARDCs became nonsignificant (P =.074), which suggests that the association between race and complications may be at least in part due to small and tortuous iliac arteries. There was no association between age, gender, or ethnicity and postoperative detection of endoleak.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that individuals of Asian ancestry are far more likely to experience adverse access-related and device-related complications after aortoiliac stent grafting than are non-Asians. We found that this association is at least partly attributable to the smaller and more tortuous iliac arteries in persons of Asian ancestry.

Diameter of abdominal aortic aneurysm and outcome of endovascular aneurysm repair: does size matter? A report from EUROSTAR

OBJECTIVES

This study was undertaken to determine the effect of the preoperative diameter of abdominal aortic aneurysms on the midterm outcome after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHOD

The data for 4392 patients who had undergone EVAR were analyzed. Patients were enrolled over 6 years to June 2002 in the EUROSTAR database. Outcomes were compared between three groups defined by the preoperative diameter of the aneurysm: group A (n = 1962), 4.0 to 5.4 cm; group B (n = 1528), 5.5 to 6.4 cm; and group C (n = 902), 6.5 cm or larger. Patient characteristics, details of aortoiliac anatomy, operative procedures, old or current device generation, and postoperative complications in the three patient groups were compared. Outcome events included aneurysm-related death, unrelated death, conversion, and post-EVAR rupture of the aneurysm. Life table analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare outcome in the three study groups. Multivariate Cox models were used to determine whether baseline and follow-up variables were independently associated with adverse outcome events.

RESULTS

Patients in group C were significantly older than patients in groups A and B (73 years vs 70 and 72 years, respectively; P =.003 - P <.0001 for different group comparisons), and more frequently were at higher operative risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification >or=3; 63% vs 48% and 54%; P =.0002-P <.0001). Device-related (type I) endoleaks were more frequently observed at early postoperative arteriography in group C compared with groups A and B (9.9% vs 3.7% and 6.8%; P =.01-P <.0001). Postoperatively systemic complications were more frequently present in group C (17.4% vs 12.0% in group A and 12.6% in group B; P <.0001 and.001). The first-month mortality was approximately twice as high in group C compared with the other groups combined (4.1% vs 2.1%; P <.0001). Late rupture was most frequent in group C. Follow-up results at midterm were less favorable in groups C and B compared with group A (freedom from rupture, 90%, 98%, and 98% at 4 years in groups C, B, and A, respectively; P <.0001 for group C vs groups A and B). Aneurysm-related death was highest in group C (88% freedom at 4 years, compared with 95% in group B and 97% in A; P =.001 and P <.0001, respectively; group B vs A, P =.004). The annual rate of aneurysm-related death in group C was 1% in the first 3 years, but accelerated to 8.0% in the fourth year. Incidence of unrelated death also was higher in groups C and B than in group A (76% and 82% freedom at 4 years vs 87%; P <.0001 for both comparisons). Ratio of aneurysm-related to unrelated death was 23%, 21%, and 50% in groups A, B, and C, respectively. Cox models demonstrated that the correlation between large aneurysms (group C) and all assessed outcome events was independent and highly significant. Older generation devices had an independent association with aneurysm-related and unrelated deaths (P =.02 and P =.04, respectively). However, this correlation was less strong than large aneurysm diameter (P =.0001 and P =.0009, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The midterm outcome of large aneurysms after EVAR was associated with increased rates of aneurysm-related death, unrelated death, and rupture. Reports of EVAR should stratify their outcomes according to the diameter of the aneurysm. Large aneurysms need a more rigorous post-EVAR surveillance schedule than do smaller aneurysms. In small aneurysms EVAR was associated with excellent outcome. This finding may justify reappraisal of currently accepted management strategies.

Emergency treatment of acute symptomatic or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Outcome of a prospective intent-to-treat by EVAR protocol

OBJECTIVE

Outcome of treatment of patients with ruptured or symptomatic non-ruptured aneurysm (rAAA and snrAAA), preferentially treated by emergency endovascular repair was assessed. The outcome was compared with a historical group of patients treated by open repair.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two groups of patients presenting with acute symptomatic AAA were compared. Group I (study group) consisted of 40 consecutive prospectively enrolled patients from May 2001 until June 2002, in whom emergency endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (e-EVAR) was the preferential management. Short or wide neck or profound hypovolemic shock were exclusion criteria for e-EVAR. Group II (control group) consisted of 28 patients, retrospectively analysed, all treated by conventional surgical repair between January 1999 and May 2001. In group I, 26 patients had rAAA and in group II 22 patients. The other patients had snrAAA.

RESULTS

In group I, 14 patients were treated by open repair. Unsuitable anatomy or profound hypovolemia was the cause of open repair in eight patients, while logistic reasons were the reasons for use of open repair in six patients (off-protocol use of open surgery). Thus, in this prospective series the feasibility of EVAR was 80% (32/40). Patient characteristics, proportion rAAA or hemodynamically unstable patients were comparable in group I and II. Volume of blood loss and need for fluid transfusion were significantly less in group I compared to group II. The perioperative mortality in group I was significantly less than in group II (20% vs. 43%, respectively, p = 0.04). If patients with rAAA were considered the mortality was 31% in group I and 50% in group II, which difference did not reach the level of statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

e-EVAR was a feasible treatment in the majority of patients with rAAA and snrAAA. Blood loss and the requirements of fluid transfusion were significantly decreased. Most importantly in this institutional series significantly lower first-month mortality was observed in the group with preferential e-EVAR compared to a control group. A multi-center study assessing the outcome of preferential use of e-EVAR in patients with acute symptomatic AAA is required.

Does the wide application of endovascular AAA repair affect the results of open surgery?

PURPOSE

to examine the effect of the adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) on the outcome of open repair (OR).

METHODS

between May 1998 and December 2001, EVAR (Zenith) was performed in 117 patients, and OR was performed because of anatomic restrictions in 40 (group A), and because of young age in 11 patients (group B).

RESULTS

EVAR patients had higher ASA classifications (p < 0.0001). EVAR was associated with a 98.3% (115 patients) technical success rate, one conversion to OR and one fatal cardiac arrest. Thirty-day mortality was 2.6% (3 patients) in EVAR, 15% (6 patients) in group A and none in group B. There was no difference in late survival between the three groups. Late reinterventions, mainly endovascular, were more frequent in EVAR. At a median follow-up of 17 months one stent-graft had migrated 5 mm distally and five stents had fractured, but without clinical consequence.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR provides good results even with inclusion of high-risk patients. The adoption of EVAR may adversely affect the results of OR offered to patients because of anatomic considerations. However, OR continues to be the first option for low-risk young patients.

Outcome of abdominal aortic endografting in high-risk patients: a 4-year single-center study

PURPOSE

To evaluate feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in patients whose fitness for surgery is questionable.

METHODS

Between April 1997 and December 2001, 389 consecutive patients underwent endovascular AAA repair. Of these, 51 (13.1%) were ASA grade IV. The perioperative and late outcomes of this group were compared to the remaining 338 patients with ASA grades <IV. Failure of AAA exclusion was defined as late conversion to open repair, AAA rupture, increased aneurysm diameter, or persisting graft-related endoleak. Gender, age, ASA grade IV, EUROSTAR class E, and AAA diameter were examined by logistic regression analysis for their influence on perioperative death, survival, and failure of AAA exclusion.

RESULTS

Four (7.8%) perioperative deaths occurred in the ASA IV group compared to 1 (0.3%) in the ASA <IV group (p=0.001). Median follow-up was 22 months (range 1-56). Failure of AAA exclusion occurred in 3 (5.9%) patients in ASA IV group and in 25 (7.4%) in ASA <IV group (p>0.05). Actuarial survival at 30 months was 62.9% in ASA IV group and 88.0% in ASA <IV group (p=0.001, log-rank test). There were no independent predictors for failure of AAA exclusion; ASA IV was independently associated with perioperative mortality (HR 17.8; 95% CI 1.6 to 188; p=0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular AAA repair in ASA IV patients is feasible and effective in preventing AAA rupture in the mid term. High-risk patients experience a worse prognosis than their good-risk counterparts. An individualized approach in selecting high-risk patients for endoluminal repair is mandatory.

Does ASA classification impact success rates of endovascular aneurysm repairs?

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical success, clinical success, postoperative complication rate, need for a secondary procedure, and mortality rate with endovascular aneurysm repair (EAR), based on the physical status classification scheme advocated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). At a single institution 167 patients underwent attempted EAR. Query of a prospectively maintained database supplemented with a retrospective review of medical records was used to gather statistics pertaining to patient demographics and outcome. In patients selected for EAR on the basis of acceptable anatomy, technical and clinical success rates were not significantly different among the different ASA classifications. Importantly, postoperative complication and 30-day mortality rates do not appear to significantly differ among the different ASA classifications in this patient population.

Outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with conditions considered unfit for an open procedure: a report on the EUROSTAR experience

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EAR) can be performed in patients whose conditions were previously considered unfit for conventional treatment of the aneurysm. However, because the life span in this category of patients often is limited because of serious comorbidity, the efficacy of EAR in prolonging life expectancy remains uncertain. This study involves the evaluation of preoperative risk classification and an assessment of the outcome of interventions.

METHODS

The data of 3075 patients, who underwent operation in 101 European institutions that collaborated in the EUROSTAR Registry, were assessed. Only the patients who had been prospectively enrolled in the registry were used for this analysis. Patient characteristics, operative risk factors, procedural details, and types of devices were correlated with preoperative estimates of operative risk, early and late mortality, complications, and primary and secondary outcome success rates. In addition, the intermediate-term survival rates in patients with unfit conditions with EAR (observed series) and with conservative approaches of the aneurysms (rupture rates as derived from the literature) were compared in a mathematical model.

RESULTS

Of the overall study group, 2525 patients were at "normal" risk for a surgical procedure (group A), 399 patients had conditions that were considered unfit for open surgery (group B), and 151 patients had conditions that were unfit for general anesthesia (group C). Both unfit categories had significantly more comorbid factors and larger aneurysms than did the patients in good medical condition. Differences were observed in comorbidities between the two high-risk categories, groups B and C. Factors that influenced the abdominal approach (previous laparotomies, hostile abdomen, and obesity) and local anatomic factors (eg, retroperitoneal fibrosis, inflammatory aneurysm, dissections, and enterostomy) were present in 19% of the patients with conditions that were unfit for open surgery and in only 1% of the category unfit for anesthesia. In contrast, severe pulmonary disease was present in 33% of the patients with conditions that were unfit for anesthesia as opposed to 11% of the patients with conditions that were unfit for open surgery. The early and late mortality rates were significantly higher in the unfit categories (groups B and C). Life table results showed a 3-year survival rate of 83% in patients at normal operative risk and of 68% in patients with unfit conditions (P =.0001). An independent correlation with late death was shown for the clinical classification into high-risk groups B and C, pulmonary disease, team experience of less than 60 procedures, and the diameter of the aneurysm. In groups B and C, aneurysms smaller than 6.0 cm were associated with a 2-year survival rate of 80% and larger aneurysms with a rate of 68% (P =.02). This difference was caused by an increased non-aneurysm-related mortality rate in the group with aneurysms of more than 6 cm. The mathematical model showed an advantage of EAR with regard to the reduction of the death rate in patients with unfit conditions as compared with no intervention after 1 year. The advantage of EAR was observed in patients with AAAs between 5 and 6 cm and with larger aneurysms.

CONCLUSION

Early and late mortality rates were increased in patients with the preoperative clinical diagnosis "unfit for open surgery and general anesthesia" as compared with patients at "normal" operative risk. EAR appeared of potential benefit in patients with unfit conditions, regardless of the aneurysm diameter. The life expectancy of patients at high risk who are considered for EAR should be longer than 1 year before any realistic gain in life span can be anticipated.