Original Article
Long-Term Outcome of Open or Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1881-1889May 20, 2010
- Abstract
Background
For patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms, randomized trials have shown an initial overall survival benefit for elective endovascular repair over conventional open repair. This survival difference, however, was no longer significant in the second year after the procedure. Information regarding the comparative outcome more than 2 years after surgery is important for clinical decision making.
Methods
We conducted a long-term, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 351 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The primary outcomes were rates of death from any cause and reintervention. Survival was calculated with the use of Kaplan–Meier methods on an intention-to-treat basis.
Results
We randomly assigned 178 patients to undergo open repair and 173 to undergo endovascular repair. Six years after randomization, the cumulative survival rates were 69.9% for open repair and 68.9% for endovascular repair (difference, 1.0 percentage point; 95% confidence interval [CI], −8.8 to 10.8; P=0.97). The cumulative rates of freedom from secondary interventions were 81.9% for open repair and 70.4% for endovascular repair (difference, 11.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.0 to 21.0; P=0.03).
Conclusions
Six years after randomization, endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar rates of survival. The rate of secondary interventions was significantly higher for endovascular repair. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00421330.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Enrollment and Outcomes.Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Survival (Panel A) and Freedom from Reintervention (Panel B).Article Activity
- Article
Randomized trials have shown that endovascular repair offers a perioperative survival benefit over open repair for patients with a large abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, this advantage is not sustained beyond 2 years after surgery.1-4 There is concern that endovascular repair lacks durability, with the possibility of an increased risk of late rupture,5 and that more reinterventions are required in patients undergoing this technique. Long-term outcome data from these trials are considered to be of crucial importance in deciding which treatment option a patient should be offered.6,7 To date, only limited data beyond 2 years after randomization have been reported. To provide long-term data, we analyzed the results of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (DREAM) trial after a median of 6.4 years.1,3
Methods
Study Design
The design and methods of this trial have been described in detail previously.8 In brief, the DREAM trial was a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 26 centers in the Netherlands and 4 centers in Belgium. The institutional review board at each center approved the original trial protocol and the follow-up extension. The study was performed according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
The trial was funded by a grant from the Netherlands National Health Insurance Council. No support was provided by pharmaceutical or medical-device companies. The sponsor had no role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Study Patients
Patients who had an abdominal aortic aneurysm measuring at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for either open or endovascular repair were enrolled after providing written informed consent. Suitability for endovascular repair was primarily determined by means of endograft-dependent anatomical criteria, whereas suitability for open repair was determined by an internist or cardiologist. Patients who required emergency aneurysm repair were excluded from the trial, as were patients with inflammatory aneurysms, anatomical variations (e.g., horseshoe kidney), connective-tissue disease, a history of organ transplantation, or a life expectancy of less than 2 years.
Randomization to either procedure was carried out centrally with the use of a computer-generated, permuted-block sequence and stratified according to study center in blocks of four patients. The primary informed consent covered 2 years of close follow-up for all patients. For this long-term analysis, a second written informed consent was requested from all patients who had completed the initial 2 years of follow-up. Patients were asked to provide consent for continued acquisition of follow-up data for the purpose of this study and for our sending twice-yearly questionnaires on their quality of life and use of medical services. Patients were informed that the follow-up protocol after the second postoperative year would not require extra studies for trial purposes and would involve only the collection of data regarding routine clinical care.
Data Collection and Follow-up
Follow-up visits for the initial phase of the trial were scheduled 30 days and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the procedure. After the initial 2 years of close follow-up, patients received a questionnaire every 6 months requesting information about the status of their mental and physical health, as well as information about visits to a general practitioner or other physicians and all hospital admissions. Follow-up for patients in the endovascular-repair group included a yearly follow-up visit and the performance of computed tomography (CT). Patients in the open-repair group were advised to see their physicians annually, but they were not actively recruited for follow-up visits during the third and fourth years after surgery. All patients were contacted by telephone 5 years postoperatively and were invited for a follow-up visit with a CT scan. Medical records were used to confirm the information that patients had provided. All data were submitted to the trial-coordination center at the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
For the current analysis, data acquisition was stopped on February 1, 2009. For all analyses, data were censored after the last follow-up contact or at the time the last questionnaire was returned. Patients who had declined further participation at 2 years or who were initially lost to follow-up were contacted directly or through their relatives or physicians. In addition, from November 2008 through February 2009, all records were scrutinized for information about reinterventions and causes of death. The information obtained in this way was incorporated into the analysis of crude survival and causes of death.
Primary Outcomes
The long-term primary outcomes were rates of death from any cause and reintervention. An outcome-adjudication committee, consisting of five vascular surgeons, classified the causes of death and reinterventions in a blinded fashion and independently from one another. Disagreements were resolved in a plenary consensus meeting.
The causes and exact dates of death were determined by reviewing death certificates and, if necessary, by contacting the involved physicians (general practitioners, surgeons, and other specialists) and patients' relatives. In-hospital death was defined as any death occurring within 30 days after the original procedure or any death occurring more than 30 days after the original procedure but during the same hospital admission. We distinguished between cardiovascular causes of death (myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, cardiac arrest, stroke, and ruptured aneurysm) and noncardiovascular causes of death (cancer, pulmonary conditions, and miscellaneous disorders).
A reintervention was defined as any surgical or endovascular procedure that was related to the primary aneurysm-repair procedure. The decision to perform a secondary intervention was made by the individual surgeon. Indications for reinterventions were classified into three groups: graft-related indications (e.g., thrombo-occlusive disease, endoleak type 1 or endotension [pressure in the aneurysm sac without a detectable endoleak], endograft migration, prosthesis infection, graft-material failure, para-anastomotic aneurysm, and aneurysm rupture), wound-related indications (e.g., incisional hernia and wound infection), and local or systemic indications (e.g., bleeding, endoleak type 2, and ileus).
Statistical Analysis
All data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The completeness of follow-up was calculated as the ratio of the total observed person-time of follow-up to the potential time of follow-up in the study for the two study groups.9 Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to calculate survival and other end points, and differences between groups were compared with the use of the log-rank test. All reported P values are two-sided and have not been corrected for multiple testing.
Results
Study Patients
From November 2000 through December 2003, we randomly assigned 178 patients to undergo open repair and 173 to undergo endovascular repair (Figure 1Figure 1
Enrollment and Outcomes.). Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of the Patients.. The mean age of the patients was 70 years, and 91.7% were male; 43.9% had concomitant cardiac disease.Six patients did not undergo aneurysm repair after randomization: four declined treatment (three in the open-repair group and one in the endovascular-repair group), one died from a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm before undergoing open repair, and one died from pneumonia before undergoing endovascular repair. There were eight in-hospital deaths after open repair and two after endovascular repair (Figure 1).
The median follow-up was 6.4 years (range, 5.1 to 8.2). All patients were followed for 5 years, 79% for 6 years, and 53% for 7 years. The completeness of follow-up was 99.3% (11,589/11,673 months) for open repair and 99.7% (11,193/11,232 months) for endovascular repair. At the date of censoring, 106 patients had died during follow-up after hospital discharge (51 in the open-repair group and 55 in the endovascular-repair group) (Figure 1). Five years after randomization, CT was performed in approximately one fourth of patients in the open-repair group and in almost all patients in the endovascular-repair group.
Overall Survival
Six years after randomization, the cumulative overall survival rates were 69.9% for open repair and 68.9% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 1.0 percentage point (95% confidence interval [CI], −8.8 to 10.8; P=0.97) (Figure 2AFigure 2
Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Survival (Panel A) and Freedom from Reintervention (Panel B).). The increased perioperative mortality in the open-repair group was counterbalanced by a larger number of deaths after discharge in the endovascular-repair group. An analysis of the causes of death indicated that miscellaneous rather than cardiovascular causes accounted for the larger number of deaths after discharge among patients undergoing endovascular repair (Table 2Table 2
Causes of Death after Open or Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.).Reintervention
Six years after randomization, the cumulative rates of freedom from secondary interventions were 81.9% for open repair and 70.4% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 11.5 percentage points (95% CI, 2.0 to 21.0; P=0.03) (Figure 2B). After open repair, the most frequent reintervention was correction of an abdominal incisional hernia, whereas endovascular-repair reinterventions were most often performed because of endograft-related complications, such as endoleak and endograft migration (Table 3Table 3
Indications for First Reintervention after Open or Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.). In one patient who had crossed over from open to endovascular repair, reintervention because of an occluded endograft limb was complicated by a fatal myocardial infarction.In the open-repair group, nine patients required a second reintervention and two required a third reintervention. After endovascular repair, 14 patients required a second reintervention, and 7 required a third reintervention. Endovascular procedures accounted for 5 of 41 reinterventions (12%) in the open-repair group and 25 of 69 reinterventions (36%) in the endovascular-repair group.
Discussion
Our principal finding was that among patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms, there was no significant difference between endovascular repair and open repair in the rate of overall survival at a median of 6.4 years. A small but significant difference in 30-day operative mortality in favor of endovascular repair had previously been reported in the DREAM trial and in two large, randomized trials.1,2,10 In 2-year analyses of both the DREAM trial3 and the United Kingdom Endovascular Aneurysm Repair 1 (EVAR 1) trial (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN55703451),4 this apparent early benefit had already been lost. With the longer follow-up in our study, the rate of overall survival remained similar for the two procedures.
Another finding was that endovascular repair was associated with a significantly higher rate of reintervention than was open repair. This observation supports the view that the short-term survival benefit of endovascular repair is achieved at the expense of long-term problems related to endograft durability. Although these problems do not seem to translate into a long-term disadvantage in overall survival, the risks associated with reintervention need to be assessed in larger studies. It is important to recognize that reintervention rates constitute a soft end point because the decision to perform a secondary procedure was at the discretion of the surgeon. However, the decisions of vascular surgeons in clinical practice are probably made on a similar basis.
In 2005, investigators in the EVAR 1 trial reported a follow-up of 4 years for patients undergoing either open repair or endovascular repair.4 At that interval, however, the number of patients at risk had dropped below 20% of those who had undergone randomization, and fewer than half the patients had been followed for 3 years or more. The recently published Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094575) reported 2 years of follow-up on 80% of randomized patients but no 3-year results.10 However, problems arising from limited durability of endovascular aneurysm repair are not expected to occur in the first 2 postoperative years. In our analysis of the DREAM trial data, not a single patient was lost to follow-up, and all surviving patients were followed for at least 5 years after randomization.
Retrospective hospital- and population-based studies with 9 years of follow-up after surgery have shown similar results.11-14 However, since these studies were not randomized, they all have a potential selection bias. The most important cause of bias is the potential association between the estimated short-term and long-term risks of death for a given patient, on the one hand, and the decision of the clinician to recommend open or endovascular repair, on the other.
In theory, inferior durability of endovascular repair, as compared with open repair, could mitigate long-term survival outcomes and thereby negate the short-term survival benefit of endovascular repair or even result in increased long-term risk. The cluster of reinterventions that appeared in the fifth year after endovascular repair is particularly troubling and casts doubt on the durability of endovascular devices. In our study, reinterventions that were performed more than 4 years after aneurysm repair were required because of endograft migration, limb thrombosis, or endoleak (type 1 or 2). The reintervention for an endograft limb occlusion followed by death a few days later illustrates the potential for reintervention to decrease patients' quality of life and increase the risk of aneurysm-related death.
Despite this concern, graft-related complications and aneurysm rupture were not frequent causes of death in the long term. Therefore, we could detect no effect of graft complications on survival, a finding that may be a consequence of insufficient statistical power. Long-term and pooled analyses of the four randomized trials — DREAM, EVAR 1, OVER, and Anévrisme de L'aorte Abdominale: Chirurgie versus Endoprothèse (ACE)15 — could have enough power to address this issue. However, it is also important to note that since the initiation of these trials, endovascular devices and techniques have undergone further modification, and with increasing experience, physicians have revised their criteria for identifying suitable candidates for endovascular repair. These changes may reduce the risk of complications requiring reintervention and thus increase long-term survival after endovascular repair.
Some limitations of our study should be noted. Because patients in the open-repair group did not undergo CT in the third and fourth years after aneurysm repair, and because only about one fourth of patients in the open-repair group underwent CT at 5 years (as compared with almost all patients in the endovascular-repair group), ascertainment bias probably contributed to the finding of more graft-related problems in the endovascular-repair group. Conversely, since it is not common practice to follow patients for more than 6 to 12 months after open repair, the elaborate follow-up protocol for all patients in the DREAM trial during the first 2 postoperative years may have led to an artificially high rate of early reintervention after open repair.
Another limitation of our trial concerns the relatively wide confidence interval for the difference in the primary outcome. On the basis of this interval, our results are consistent with a survival rate in the open-repair group that is as much as 10.8% higher or 8.8% lower than that in the endovascular-repair group. This imprecision is the inevitable consequence of the initial sample size and the numbers of patients remaining alive after 6 years of follow-up.
Not all patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm are anatomically suitable for endovascular repair. Certain subgroups of patients (in terms of expected survival, coexisting illnesses, or various associated risk factors) may benefit more from one or the other type of aneurysm repair, but much larger trials or analysis of pooled data from the existing trials would be needed to identify these patients. Nevertheless, our study may help guide physicians and patients in choosing between open and endovascular repair, since our findings can be appraised in relation to various individual and personal circumstances.
In conclusion, our comparison of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with open repair showed similar long-term survival 6 years after randomization. There was a higher rate of secondary interventions in the endovascular-repair group.
Supported by the Netherlands National Health Insurance Council.
Dr. Buth reports receiving reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses from Medtronic and Eurostar and payments for manuscript preparation from William Cook Europe, W.L. Gore, and Medtronic; Dr. Verhoeven, receiving payment for expert testimony, development of educational presentations, consulting and lecture fees, grant support, and travel and accommodation expenses from William Cook Europe and W.L. Gore and royalties from William Cook Europe; Dr. Cuypers, receiving lecture fees from Medtronic; Dr. van Sambeek, receiving consulting fees from Medtronic and Cardialysis, research support from Medtronic, lecture fees from W.L. Gore, and travel grants from Medtronic and W.L. Gore; Dr. Balm, receiving consulting fees from Medtronic; and Dr. Blankensteijn, receiving consulting fees from Cordis and W.L. Gore. Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Drs. De Bruin and Baas contributed equally to this article.
We thank the Netherlands Society for Vascular Surgery, and Nicole Boekema and Lara Heuveling for their outstanding efforts in data management.
Source Information
From the Department of Surgery, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam (J.L.D.B, J.D.B.); the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht (A.F.B., M.P., D.E.G.); the Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven (J.B., P.W.M.C., M.R.H.M.S.); the Department of Surgery, Academic Hospital, Groningen (E.L.G.V.); the Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (M.R.H.M.S.); and the Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam (R.B.) — all in the Netherlands.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Blankensteijn at the Department of Surgery, VU Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, the Netherlands, or at j.blankensteijn@vumc.nl.
The members of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (DREAM) study group are listed in the Appendix.
Appendix
Members of the DREAM trial study group are as follows: Steering Committee: D.E. Grobbee, J.D. Blankensteijn, A.A.A. Bak, J. Buth, P.M. Pattynama, E.L.G. Verhoeven, A.E. van Voorthuisen; Executive and Writing Committee: J.D. Blankensteijn, R. Balm, J. Buth, P.W.M. Cuypers, D.E. Grobbee, M. Prinssen, M.R.H.M. van Sambeek, E.L.G. Verhoeven, A.F. Baas; Data-Monitoring and Ethics Committee: M.G. Hunink, J.M. van Engelshoven, M.J.H.M. Jacobs, B.A.J.M. de Mol; Site and Device-Selection Committee: J.H. van Bockel, R. Balm, J. Reekers, X. Tielbeek, E.L.G. Verhoeven, W. Wisselink; Data Management: N. Boekema, L.M. Heuveling, I. Sikking; Outcome Adjudication Committee: M. Prinssen, R. Balm, J.D. Blankensteijn, J. Buth, P.W.M. Cuypers, M.R.H.M. van Sambeek, E.L.G. Verhoeven; Data Analysis: J.L. de Bruin, A.F. Baas, J.D. Blankensteijn, M. Prinssen.
The clinical centers that participated in the study are as follows (with the number of randomized patients in parentheses): the Netherlands: Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven (94) — J. Buth, A.V. Tielbeek; University Medical Center, Utrecht (35) — J.D. Blankensteijn; Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam (32) — R. Balm, J.A. Reekers; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam (30) — M.R.H.M. van Sambeek, P. Pattynama; University Hospital, Groningen (27) — E.L.G. Verhoeven, T. Prins; St. Franciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam (27) — A.C. van der Ham, J.J.I.M. van der Velden; Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem (14) — S.M.M. van Sterkenburg, G.B. ten Haken; Leyenburg Hospital, `s-Gravenhage (9) — C.M.A. Bruijninckx, H. van Overhagen; Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (8) — R.P. Tutein Nolthenius, T.R. Hendriksz; Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen (8) — J.A.W. Teijink, H.F. Odink; Medical Center Rijnmond Zuid, Rotterdam (7) — A.A.E.A. de Smet, D. Vroegindeweij; Jeroen Bosch Hospital, den Bosch (7) — R.M.M. van Loenhout, M.J. Rutten; St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg (5) — J.F. Hamming, L.E.H. Lampmann; Maxima Medical Center, Veldhoven (5) — M.H.M. Bender, H. Pasmans; Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam (5) — A.C. Vahl, C. de Vries; Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort (4) — A.J.C. Mackaay; Vlietland Hospital, Schiedam (4) — L.M.C. van Dortmont; University Medical Center, Nijmegen (4) — A.J. van der Vliet, L.J. Schultze Kool; Martini Hospital, Groningen (3) — J.H.B. Boomsma, H.R. van Dop; Medical Center Haaglanden, `s-Gravenhage (3) — J.C.A. de Mol van Otterloo, T.P.W. de Rooij; Hospital Bernhoven, Oss (3) — T.M. Smits; Oosterschelde Hospital, Goes (3) — E.N. Yilmaz; Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam (2) — W. Wisselink, F.G. van den Berg; Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden (1) — M.J.T. Visser, E. van der Linden; University Medical Center, Maastricht (1) — G.W.H. Schurink, M. de Haan; Bronovo Hospital, `s-Gravenhage (1) — H.J. Smeets; Belgium: St. Jozef Hospital, Turnhout (4) — P. Stabel; St. Trudo Hospital, St. Truiden (3) — F. van Elst; University Hospital, Antwerp (1) — J. Poniewierski; University Medical Center, Ghent (1) — F.E.G. Vermassen.
- References
References
1
Prinssen M ,Verhoeven EL ,Buth J , et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1607-1618
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
Greenhalgh RM ,Brown LC ,Kwong GP ,Powell JT ,Thompson SG . Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:843-848
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Blankensteijn JD ,de Jong SE ,Prinssen M , et al. Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2398-2405
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline4
EVAR Trial Participants
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Leurs LJ ,Buth J ,Laheij RJ . Long-term results of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment with the first generation of commercially available stent grafts. Arch Surg 2007;142:33-41
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Lederle FA . Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm -- round two. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2443-2445
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline7
Cronenwett JL . Endovascular aneurysm repair: important mid-term results. Lancet 2005;365:2156-2158
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Prinssen M ,Buskens E ,Blankensteijn JD . The Dutch Randomised Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial: background, design and methods. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2002;43:379-384
Web of Science | Medline9
Clark TG ,Altman DG ,De Stavola BL . Quantification of the completeness of follow-up. Lancet 2002;359:1309-1310
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Lederle FA ,Freischlag JA ,Kyriakides TC , et al. Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. JAMA 2009;302:1535-1542
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Cao P ,Verzini F ,Parlani G , et al. Clinical effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm endografting: 7-year concurrent comparison with open repair. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:841-848
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Schermerhorn M ,O'Mally AJ ,Jhaveri A , et al. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med 2008;358:464-474
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline13
Brewster DC ,Jones JE ,Chung TK , et al. Long-term outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: the first decade. Ann Surg 2006;244:426-438
Web of Science | Medline14
Peterson BG ,Matsumura JS ,Brewster DC ,Makaroun MS . Five-year report of a multicenter controlled clinical trial of open versus endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2007;45:885-890
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Becquemin JP . The ACE trial: a randomized comparison of open versus endovascular repair in good risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 2009;50:222-224
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (51)
Citing Articles
1
Mehul V. Raval, Mark K. Eskandari. (2012) Outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair among the elderly: Endovascular versus open repair. Surgery 151:2, 245-260
CrossRef2
Kylie E. Kvinlaug, D. Kirk Lawlor, Thomas L. Forbes, Rod Willoughby, Kent S. MacKenzie, Guy DeRose, Marc M. Corriveau, Oren K. Steinmetz. (2012) Early Results From a Canadian Multicenter Prospective Registry of the Endurant Stent Graft for Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. Journal of Endovascular Therapy 19:1, 58-66
CrossRef3
Almar Klein, J. Adam van der Vliet, Luuk J. Oostveen, Yvonne Hoogeveen, Leo J. Schultze Kool, W. Klaas Jan Renema, Cornelis H. Slump. (2012) Automatic segmentation of the wire frame of stent grafts from CT data. Medical Image Analysis 16:1, 127-139
CrossRef4
Eric S. Hager, Jae S. Cho, Michel S. Makaroun, Sun Cheol Park, Rabih Chaer, Luke Marone, Robert Y. Rhee. (2012) Endografts with suprarenal fixation do not perform better than those with infrarenal fixation in the treatment of patients with short straight proximal aortic necks. Journal of Vascular Surgery
CrossRef5
Evert J. Waasdorp, Madhu L. Gorrepati, Benjamin Y. Rafii, Jean-Paul P.M. de Vries, Christopher K. Zarins. (2011) Sideways displacement of the endograft within the aneurysm sac is associated with late adverse events after endovascular aneurysm repair. Journal of Vascular Surgery
CrossRef6
Dave Koole, Frans L. Moll, Jacob Buth, Roel Hobo, Herman J.A. Zandvoort, Michiel L. Bots, Gerard Pasterkamp, Joost A. van Herwaarden. (2011) Annual rupture risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm enlargement without detectable endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic repair. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:6, 1614-1622
CrossRef7
P. Perini, I. Sediri, M. Midulla, P. Delsart, S. Mouton, C. Gautier, J.-P. Pruvo, S. Haulon. (2011) Single-centre Prospective Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Computed Tomography Angiography after EVAR. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 42:6, 797-802
CrossRef8
Arnoud G. Peppelenbosch, Michiel W. de Haan, Jan-Willem H. C. Daemen, Geert W. H. Schurink. (2011) Use of the Reversed Zenith Iliac Limb Extension in the Treatment of Iliac Artery Aneurysms and Various Aortoiliac Pathologies: Outcome in Midterm Follow-up. Journal of Endovascular Therapy 18:6, 762-767
CrossRef9
Glenn Skow. (2011) Abdominal aortic aneurysm. Journal of Men's Health 8:4, 306-312
CrossRef10
Ryotaro Hashizume, Aika Yamawaki-Ogata, Yuichi Ueda, William R. Wagner, Yuji Narita. (2011) Mesenchymal stem cells attenuate angiotensin II-induced aortic aneurysm growth in apolipoprotein E-deficient mice. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:6, 1743-1752
CrossRef11
P. Geisbüsch, B.T. Katzen, D. Böckler. (2011) Endovaskuläre Therapie infrarenaler Aortenaneurysmen. Gefässchirurgie 16:8, 584-589
CrossRef12
Eric C. Martin, George J. Todd. (2011) Endoleaks with the AneuRx Graft: A Longer-Term, Single-Center Study. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 22:12, 1674-1679
CrossRef13
Kathleen Wittels. (2011) Aortic Emergencies. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 29:4, 789-800
CrossRef14
Matthew S. Edwards, Jeanette S. Andrews, Angela F. Edwards, Racheed J. Ghanami, Matthew A. Corriere, Philip P. Goodney, Christopher J. Godshall, Kimberley J. Hansen. (2011) Results of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with general, regional, and local/monitored anesthesia care in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:5, 1273-1282
CrossRef15
Derek P. Nathan, Clayton J. Brinster, Benjamin M. Jackson, Grace J. Wang, Jeffrey P. Carpenter, Ronald M. Fairman, Edward Y. Woo. (2011) Predictors of decreased short- and long-term survival following open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:5, 1237-1243
CrossRef16
Thom W. Rooke, Alan T. Hirsch, Sanjay Misra, Anton N. Sidawy, Joshua A. Beckman, Laura K. Findeiss, Jafar Golzarian, Heather L. Gornik, Jonathan L. Halperin, Michael R. Jaff, Gregory L. Moneta, Jeffrey W. Olin, James C. Stanley, Christopher J. White, John V. White, R. Eugene Zierler. (2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Guideline for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease (Updating the 2005 Guideline). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 58:19, 2020-2045
CrossRef17
Thom W. Rooke, Alan T. Hirsch, Sanjay Misra, Anton N. Sidawy, Joshua A. Beckman, Laura K. Findeiss, Jafar Golzarian, Heather L. Gornik, Jonathan L. Halperin, Michael R. Jaff, Gregory L. Moneta, Jeffrey W. Olin, James C. Stanley, Christopher J. White, John V. White, R. Eugene Zierler. (2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA Focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with peripheral artery disease (updating the 2005 guideline). Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:5, e32-e58
CrossRef18
A. Karthikesalingam, A.A. Page, C. Pettengell, R.J. Hinchliffe, I.M. Loftus, M.M. Thompson, P.J.E. Holt. (2011) Heterogeneity in Surveillance after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in the UK. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 42:5, 585-590
CrossRef19
Sachin V. Phade, Mark L. Keldahl, Mark D. Morasch, Heron E. Rodriguez, William H. Pearce, Melina R. Kibbe, Mark K. Eskandari. (2011) Late abdominal aortic endograft explants: Indications and outcomes. Surgery 150:4, 788-795
CrossRef20
L. B. Davidovic, Đ. Radak, I. Končar, D. Sagić, M. Čolić, I. Banzić. (2011) Endovascular aortic repair – initial experience in the Serbian bi-centric study. European Surgery 43:5, 302-308
CrossRef21
Benjamin W. Starnes, Christopher J. Kwolek, Juan C. Parodi, Frank J. Veith. (2011) Influence and Critique of the EVAR 1 Trial. Seminars in Vascular Surgery 24:3, 146-148
CrossRef22
Jasper W. van Keulen, Jean-Paul P.M. de Vries, Hannah Dekker, Frederico B. Gonçalves, Frans L. Moll, Hence J. Verhagen, Joost A. van Herwaarden. (2011) One-year multicenter results of 100 abdominal aortic aneurysm patients treated with the Endurant stent graft. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:3, 609-615
CrossRef23
Brendan Wisniowski, Mary Barnes, Jason Jenkins, Nicholas Boyne, Allan Kruger, Philip J. Walker. (2011) Predictors of outcome after elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and external validation of a risk prediction model. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:3, 644-653
CrossRef24
F. Gómez Palonés, C. Vaquero Puerta, R. Gesto Castromil, F.J. Serrano Hernando, J. Maeso Lebrun, R. Vila Coll, A. Clará Velasco, J.R. Escudero Román, V. Riambau Alonso. (2011) Tratamiento endovascular del aneurisma de aorta abdominal. Angiología 63:5, 205-228
CrossRef25
G. Maleux, H. Claes, A. Holsbeeck, R. Janssen, A. Laenen, S. Heye, S. Houthoofd, I. Fourneau. (2011) Ten Years of Experience with the GORE EXCLUDER® Stent-Graft for the Treatment of Aortic and Iliac Aneurysms: Outcomes from a Single Center Study. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
CrossRef26
Clara M. Yates, Mohamed Abdelhamid, Donald J. Adam, Gerard B. Nash, Andrew W. Bradbury, G. Ed Rainger. (2011) Endovascular aneurysm repair reverses the increased titer and the inflammatory activity of interleukin-1α in the serum of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:2, 497-503
CrossRef27
Claudio Bianchini Massoni, Mauro Gargiulo, Federica Giovanetti, Antonio Freyrie, GianLuca Faggioli, Enrico Gallitto, Andrea Stella. (2011) Adjunctive Stenting of Endograft Limbs During Endovascular Treatment of Infrarenal Aortic and Iliac Aneurysms According to 3-Projection Completion Angiography. Journal of Endovascular Therapy 18:4, 585-590
CrossRef28
Efthimios D. Avgerinos, Ilias Dalainas, John Kakisis, Konstantinos Moulakakis, Triantafillos Giannakopoulos, Christos D. Liapis. (2011) Endograft Accommodation on the Aortic Bifurcation: An Overview of Anatomical Fixation and Implications for Long-term Stent-Graft Stability. Journal of Endovascular Therapy 18:4, 462-470
CrossRef29
Jeffrey Jim, Brian G. Rubin, Patrick J. Geraghty, Samuel R. Money, Luis A. Sanchez. (2011) Midterm outcomes of the Zenith Renu AAA Ancillary Graft. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:2, 307-315.e1
CrossRef30
Jonathan Golledge, Paul E. Norman. (2011) Current status of medical management for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Atherosclerosis 217:1, 57-63
CrossRef31
D.K. Krievins, A. Holden, J. Savlovskis, C. Calderas, C.E. Donayre, F.L. Moll, B. Katzen, C.K. Zarins. (2011) EVAR Using the Nellix Sac-anchoring Endoprosthesis: Treatment of Favourable and Adverse Anatomy. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 42:1, 38-46
CrossRef32
L. C. Brown, S. G. Thompson, R. M. Greenhalgh, J. T. Powell, . (2011) Incidence of cardiovascular events and death after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the randomized EVAR trial 1. British Journal of Surgery 98:7, 935-942
CrossRef33
Natalia N. Egorova, Ageliki G. Vouyouka, James F. McKinsey, Peter L. Faries, K. Craig Kent, Alan J. Moskowitz, Annetine Gelijns. (2011) Effect of gender on long-term survival after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair based on results from the Medicare national database. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:1, 1-12.e6
CrossRef34
Raphael Coscas, Hicham Kobeiter, Pascal Desgranges, Jean-Pierre Becquemin. (2011) Technical aspects, current indications, and results of chimney grafts for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. Journal of Vascular Surgery 53:6, 1520-1527
CrossRef35
Hany Hafez, Mlotshwa Makhosini, Nima Abbassi-Ghaddi, Robert Hill, Mark Bentley. (2011) Transverse minilaparotomy for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Journal of Vascular Surgery 53:6, 1514-1519
CrossRef36
W. Schwenk, B. Schinkel. (2011) Perioperative Schmerztherapie. Der Chirurg 82:6, 539-556
CrossRef37
Ahmed Klink, Fabien Hyafil, James Rudd, Peter Faries, Valentin Fuster, Ziad Mallat, Olivier Meilhac, Willem J. M. Mulder, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Francesco Ramirez, Gert Storm, Robert Thompson, Irene C. Turnbull, Jesus Egido, Jose L. Martín-Ventura, Carlos Zaragoza, Didier Letourneur, Zahi A. Fayad. (2011) Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Nature Reviews Cardiology 8:6, 338-347
CrossRef38
Virendra I. Patel, Emel Ergul, Mark F. Conrad, Matthew Cambria, Glenn M. LaMuraglia, Christopher J. Kwolek, David C. Brewster, Richard P. Cambria. (2011) Continued favorable results with open surgical repair of type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Journal of Vascular Surgery 53:6, 1492-1498
CrossRef39
P. Sandiford, D. Mosquera, D. Bramley. (2011) Trends in incidence and mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm in New Zealand. British Journal of Surgery 98:5, 645-651
CrossRef40
Mohammad Hassan Murad, Victor M. Montori, Anton N. Sidawy, Enrico Ascher, Mark H. Meissner, Elliot L. Chaikof, Peter Gloviczki. (2011) Guideline methodology of the Society for Vascular Surgery including the experience with the GRADE framework. Journal of Vascular Surgery 53:5, 1375-1380
CrossRef41
Jean-Pierre Becquemin, Jean-Chistophe Pillet, François Lescalie, Marc Sapoval, Yann Goueffic, Patrick Lermusiaux, Eric Steinmetz, Jean Marzelle. (2011) A randomized controlled trial of endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms in low- to moderate-risk patients. Journal of Vascular Surgery 53:5, 1167-1173.e1
CrossRef42
Felix J.V. Schlösser, John E. Aruny, Carter B. Freiburg, Hamid R. Mojibian, Bauer E. Sumpio, Bart E. Muhs. (2011) The chimney procedure is an emergently available endovascular solution for visceral aortic aneurysm rupture. Journal of Vascular Surgery 53:5, 1386-1390
CrossRef43
Todd J. Smaka, Miguel Cobas, Omaida C. Velazquez, David A. Lubarsky. (2011) Perioperative Management of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Update 2010. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 25:1, 166-176
CrossRef44
F.L. Moll, J.T. Powell, G. Fraedrich, F. Verzini, S. Haulon, M. Waltham, J.A. van Herwaarden, P.J.E. Holt, J.W. van Keulen, B. Rantner, F.J.V. Schlösser, F. Setacci, J.-B. Ricco. (2011) Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 41, S1-S58
CrossRef45
, Thom W. Rooke, Alan T. Hirsch, Sanjay Misra, Anton N. Sidawy, Joshua A. Beckman, Laura K. Findeiss, Jafar Golzarian, Heather L. Gornik, Jonathan L. Halperin, Michael R. Jaff, Gregory L. Moneta, Jeffrey W. Olin, James C. Stanley, Christopher J. White, John V. White, R. Eugene Zierler, , Alan T. Hirsch, Ziv J. Haskal, Norman R. Hertzer, Curtis W. Bakal, Mark A. Creager, Jonathan L. Halperin, Loren F. Hiratzka, William R.C. Murphy, Jeffrey W. Olin, Jules B. Puschett, Kenneth A. Rosenfield, David Sacks, James C. Stanley, Lloyd M. Taylor, Christopher J. White, John V. White, Rodney A. White, , Alice K. Jacobs, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Nancy Albert, Mark A. Creager, Steven M. Ettinger, Robert A. Guyton, Jonathan L. Halperin, Judith S. Hochman, Frederick G. Kushner, E. Magnus Ohman, William Stevenson, Clyde W. Yancy. (2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with peripheral artery disease (Updating the 2005 guideline). Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventionsn/a-n/a
CrossRef46
Ei Jun Park, Hyoung Tae Kim, Won Hyun Cho, Young Hwan Kim. (2011) Type I Endoleak Five Year after Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Korean Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 27:2, 76
CrossRef47
Jean-Eric Tarride, Gord Blackhouse, Guy De Rose, James M. Bowen, Hamid Reza Nakhai-Pour, Daria O'Reilly, Feng Xie, Teresa Novick, Robert Hopkins, Ron Goeree. (2011) Should Endovascular Repair Be Reimbursed for Low Risk Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Patients? Evidence from Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Vascular Medicine 2011, 1-10
CrossRef48
F. Álvarez Marcos, A. Zanabili Al-Sibbai, J.M. Gutiérrez Julián, J.M. Llaneza Coto, A. García de la Torre, A. Valle González. (2010) El deterioro renal postoperatorio puede ser útil para predecir el resultado y la supervivencia de la reparación de aneurismas de aorta abdominal, tanto abierta como endovascular. Angiología 62:6, 207-213
CrossRef49
(2010) Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. New England Journal of Medicine 363:15, 1479-1482
Full Text50
Joana Osório. (2010) Surgery: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm—the importance of long-term follow-up data. Nature Reviews Cardiology 7:8, 415-415
CrossRef51
Kent, K. Craig, . (2010) Endovascular Aneurysm Repair — Is It Durable?. New England Journal of Medicine 362:20, 1930-1931
Full Text
