Purpose: Endograft technology for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is being applied more liberally. There is little information about the midterm performance of these grafts. This study is focused on follow-up interventions after endograft repair for AAA.
Methods: Prospective follow-up analysis of a consecutive patient series (n = 173 patients) at a single center who underwent endovascular AAA repair up to 50 months after operation. Seventeen percent of the patients were regarded unfit for open surgery. Four types of commercially available grafts were used. The Society for Vascular Surgery/International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery guidelines were applied for endograft implantation and data preparation.
Results: In two patients, the procedure was converted to open surgery. In one procedure, emergency repair for iliac artery rupture was performed. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.8% (n = 5 patients). An early second procedure to correct type I endoleaks was necessary in 8 cases (4.6%; 3-10 days). The following midterm results were obtained: median follow-up of the 166 remaining patients was 18 months (range, 1-50 months); 50 additional procedures were necessary in 37 patients (22.3%) for the treatment of leaks (n = 45 interventions) or to maintain graft patency (n = 5 grafts; four patients with concomitant graft segment disconnection); and 46% of the reinterventions were performed within the first year of follow-up and 74% of the reinterventions were performed within the second year of follow-up. One patient died after emergency surgery for rupture as the result of a secondary endoleak at 1 year. Although seven interventions (14%) were performed for type II endoleak, no serious complications were related to patent sidebranches. There was no statistically significant difference between the need for maintenance in different graft configurations (tubular, bifurcated, aorto-uniiliac), or number of graft segments (1, 2, 3-4, > or = 5 segments). New generation grafts (after 1996) performed better than early generation grafts (P = 0.04, chi-squared test) with regard to endoleak development.
Conclusion: Endograft repair for AAA is safe but, with current technology, not as durable as open repair. Our data suggest that the use of endograft repair for AAA is becoming safer as endograft design improves. Nevertheless in 26.6% of the patients, there is need for reintervention within midterm follow-up. Close follow-up is crucial because late leaks may develop after more than 2 years after the initial procedure. Endoluminal repair should therefore be applied with caution, strict indication, and only if a tight follow-up is warranted. These findings may also affect health care reimbursement policies.