Midterm results of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: comparison of instruction-for-use (IFU) cases and non-IFU cases

• Published in: Japanese journal of radiology Vol. 31; no. 9; pp. 585 - 592
• Main Authors: Nakai, Motoki, Sato, Morio, Sato, Hirotatsu, Sakaguchi, Hinako, Tanaka, Fumihiro, Ikoma, Akira, Sanda, Hiroki, Nakata, Kouhei, Minamiguchi, Hiroki, Kawai, Nobuyuki, Sonomura, Tetsuo, Nishimura, Yoshiharu, Okamura, Yoshitaka
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Tokyo Springer Japan 01.09.2013; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angiography, Digital Subtraction - methods; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation; Contrast Media; Endoleak - diagnostic imaging; Endovascular Procedures - methods; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Imaging; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Nuclear Medicine; Original Article; Prosthesis Design; Radiation Dosage; Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods; Radiology; Radiotherapy; Risk Assessment - methods; Survival Analysis; Tomography, Spiral Computed - methods; Treatment Outcome; Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair; Adverse events; Midterm results; Endoleak; Abdominal aortic aneurysm
• ISSN: 1867-1071; 1867-108X
• DOI: 10.1007/s11604-013-0223-7

Purpose To investigate the midterm results of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and compare the endoleak (EL) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) prognoses between instruction-for-use (IFU) patients and non-IFU patients. Materials and methods Of 124 patients (104 men, 20 women; mean age 76.2 years; age range 58–93 years) with AAA who underwent EVAR with the Zenith (68 patients) or Excluder device (56) and were analyzed, 86 were IFU and 38 non-IFU. Results The mean absorbed dose of radiation exposure was 1907 mGy in the IFU group and 2283 mGy in the non-IFU group ( p  = 0.013). Thirty-five patients experienced EL: 8 (6.5 %) type I and 27 (21.8 %) type II. Type I ELs were observed in 3 patients in the IFU group (3.5 %) and 5 patients in the non-IFU group (13.2 %). Of the 14 patients with AAA diameter expansion of ≥5 mm, 6 (6/86, 7.0 %) belonged to the IFU group and 8 (8/38, 21.1 %) to the non-IFU group ( p  = 0.027). Conclusion The frequency of AAA expansion ≥5 mm was higher in non-IFU patients than in IFU patients. Therefore, careful follow-up is necessary for non-IFU patients rather than IFU patients.