Key result
Endovascular aortic repair consistently increases arterial stiffness, whereas open repair yields mixed results.
Why the study?
As endovascular aortic treatment expands to younger patients, attention is turning from structural durability alone toward the biomechanical compatibility of prosthetic grafts, which create a compliance transition that may accelerate pulse-wave transmission, alter wave reflection, and increase left-ventricular load.
Does open surgical or endovascular aortic repair increase aortic stiffness and adversely affect central haemodynamics and left-ventricular remodelling in patients with aortic disease?
Does open surgical or endovascular aortic repair increase aortic stiffness and adversely affect central haemodynamics and left-ventricular remodelling in patients with aortic disease?
Endovascular and open aortic repairs introduce prosthetic compliance mismatch that generally increases measured aortic stiffness—especially after endovascular repair—highlighting the need for standardized longitudinal studies with cfPWV and cardiac imaging before biomechanical compatibility can guide clinical device selection or surveillance.
Evaluation of aortic repair has traditionally prioritised perioperative safety, exclusion of the diseased segment and durability. As endovascular treatment expands to younger patients, attention is turning towards the biomechanical compatibility of prosthetic grafts with the native aorta. Native aortic compliance supports Windkessel function, whereas grafts create a compliance transition that may accelerate pulse‐wave transmission, alter wave reflection and increase left‐ventricular load. This narrative review distinguishes established evidence from emerging concepts after open surgical repair, endovascular aneurysm repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Carotid‐femoral pulse‐wave velocity (cfPWV) is the accepted reference non‐invasive measure of regional aortic stiffness; cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)‐derived segmental pulse‐wave velocity and distensibility provide complementary information. Brachial‐ankle pulse‐wave velocity, the cardio‐ankle vascular index, and augmentation index assess different territories or haemodynamic properties and are not interchangeable with cfPWV. Left‐ventricular strain and mass are downstream cardiac outcomes. Clinical evidence generally reports increases in measured arterial‐stiffness indices after endovascular repair, whereas findings after open repair are heterogeneous. Treatment length, landing‐zone location, oversizing, anatomy and baseline vascular phenotype may be as important as graft fabric or stent‐frame category. Conflicting comparisons of polyester and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene arise from small, non‐randomised studies using non‐equivalent endpoints and do not support a reliable ranking of commercial devices. Emerging 4D‐flow CMR, simulation and compliant graft materials illustrate a shift from structural exclusion alone towards compliance‐aware repair, but evidence of improved outcomes remains insufficient. Future studies should use standardised longitudinal stiffness, blood‐pressure and cardiac assessments and relate biomechanical changes to hypertension, ventricular remodelling and cardiovascular outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moothathamby et al. (2026) conducted a review in Aortic aneurysm, dissection, or thoracic aortic injury undergoing open or endovascular aortic repair. Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR and TEVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) vs. Baseline native aortic state or comparison between open surgical and endovascular repair was evaluated on Regional and local arterial stiffness (primarily carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity [cfPWV]). Endovascular aortic repair consistently increases arterial stiffness indices like cfPWV, whereas open surgical repair yields heterogeneous effects without proving superiority of any specific device.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: