Why the study?
The re-intervention rate following EVAR has been a subject of debate in many studies.
What is the early re-intervention rate following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair compared to historical benchmarks?
What is the early re-intervention rate following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair compared to historical benchmarks?
The early re-intervention rate following EVAR is approximately 18.5%, highlighting the necessity of mandatory long-term follow-up for these patients.
Single-center four-year EVAR re-intervention rate of 18.5% aligns closely with NICE benchmarks; leaves open need for larger multicenter validation.
Background and aim Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has revolutionized the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The re-intervention rate following EVAR has been a subject of debate in many studies. The study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes in terms of the early (four-year) re-intervention rate following EVAR at our centre and compare it to the average re-intervention rate of the main studies assessed by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Methods The EVAR procedures performed over two years (2015 and 2016) were retrieved using the operation codes. The clinical portal and PACS systems were used to review the discharge summaries, clinic and multidisciplinary team (MDT) letters, as well as the scans and interventional radiology procedures to assess the patients' adherence to follow-up and identify any re-intervention procedure done to correct underlying problems related to the EVAR performed. Patients who switched their follow-up to another hospital were contacted and interviewed about any re-intervention undergone. Results A total of 108 patients underwent EVAR during the two-year study period. Twenty EVAR-related re-interventions (18.5%) were recorded, irrespective of the cause or the type of intervention. This is slightly higher than the average rate by NICE (16.89%). Type 1 endoleak represented the leading cause for re-intervention (30%). Most of the cases of re-intervention were done endovascularly (60%). Forty-five percent of the patients had a re-intervention during the first year and 35% in the third year. Conclusion This study shows that although our re-intervention rate following EVAR was slightly higher than the international average, EVAR is still a safe method for the repair of AAA with relatively low peri-operative morbidity and mortality. However, long-term follow-up of these patients is mandatory as re-interventions are frequently required. Nonetheless, the majority of re-interventions can be done with minimal morbidity to the patient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soliman et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: