An assessment of the current applicability of the EVT endovascular graft for treatment of patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

G. S. Treiman, P. F. Lawrence, William Edwards, S. W. Galt, L. W. Kraiss, K. Bhirangi, V. Bernhard

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    58 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Objective: To determine the percentage of elective abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs)/aortoiliac aneurysms that currently can be repaired with endovascular grafts (EVGs), the reasons for rejection of EVGs, and the future role of EVG in the treatment of AAA. Methods: From January 1997 to May 1998, patients at three hospitals (a university hospital, a university-affiliated teaching hospital, and a Veterans Administration hospital with university faculty and residents) were evaluated for EVGs as part of a national clinical trial with grafts manufactured by Endovascular Technologies (EVT, Menlo Park, Calif). All patients at two hospitals and patients treated by the participating surgeons at the third hospital were screened for EVG. Patients with AAAs that were ruptured, symptomatic, or involved renal or mesentric arteries and patients who declined treatment were excluded from the study. Evaluation included clinical examination, computed tomography scan, and selective arteriography. The decision to proceed with EVG was made by the vascular surgeon, with input and concurrence of medical personnel from a company with extensive experience in endograft repair. The main outcome measures were the determination of the percentage of elective AAAs currently being treated with an EVG and the reasons for exclusion of patients from EVG placement. Results: A total of 162 patients underwent elective treatment of an AAA, 22 (14%) with an EVG (14 bifurcated, eight tube) and 140 (86%) with traditional resection. Indications for not proceeding with an EVG included insufficient proximal cuff in 29 patients (21%), distal common iliac aneurysm or insufficient distal iliac neck in 29 patients (21%), proximal neck too large for an EVG in 24 patients (17%), symptomatic iliac stenosis in 23 patients (16%), iliac stenosis precluding introducer passage in 17 patients (12%), patient preference in 11 patients (8%), and calcification, kink, or extensive thrombus involving the proximal neck precluding safe graft attachment in seven patients (5%). Of the 22 patients treated with an EVG, three were converted to open resection, because of lilac stenosis in two patients and premature stent deployment in one patient (initial technical success rate, 86%). Conclusion: Based on currently available technology, 80% of patients were not candidates for an EVG because of proximal calcification, short aortic or distal cuff, coexisting distal iliac aneurysm, and stenotic iliac disease. Even with the use of adjunctive procedures, most patients still require open repair. Significant changes in design will be necessary to apply these devices to most patients with an AAA.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)68-75
    Number of pages8
    JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
    Volume30
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 1999

    Fingerprint

    Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
    Transplants
    Therapeutics
    Iliac Aneurysm
    Pathologic Constriction
    Technology
    Veterans Hospitals
    United States Department of Veterans Affairs
    Patient Preference

    All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

    • Surgery
    • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

    Cite this

    An assessment of the current applicability of the EVT endovascular graft for treatment of patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. / Treiman, G. S.; Lawrence, P. F.; Edwards, William; Galt, S. W.; Kraiss, L. W.; Bhirangi, K.; Bernhard, V.

    In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 30, No. 1, 01.01.1999, p. 68-75.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Treiman, G. S. ; Lawrence, P. F. ; Edwards, William ; Galt, S. W. ; Kraiss, L. W. ; Bhirangi, K. ; Bernhard, V. / An assessment of the current applicability of the EVT endovascular graft for treatment of patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 1999 ; Vol. 30, No. 1. pp. 68-75.
    @article{78f858340da940a297750e8c072906c2,
    title = "An assessment of the current applicability of the EVT endovascular graft for treatment of patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm",
    abstract = "Objective: To determine the percentage of elective abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs)/aortoiliac aneurysms that currently can be repaired with endovascular grafts (EVGs), the reasons for rejection of EVGs, and the future role of EVG in the treatment of AAA. Methods: From January 1997 to May 1998, patients at three hospitals (a university hospital, a university-affiliated teaching hospital, and a Veterans Administration hospital with university faculty and residents) were evaluated for EVGs as part of a national clinical trial with grafts manufactured by Endovascular Technologies (EVT, Menlo Park, Calif). All patients at two hospitals and patients treated by the participating surgeons at the third hospital were screened for EVG. Patients with AAAs that were ruptured, symptomatic, or involved renal or mesentric arteries and patients who declined treatment were excluded from the study. Evaluation included clinical examination, computed tomography scan, and selective arteriography. The decision to proceed with EVG was made by the vascular surgeon, with input and concurrence of medical personnel from a company with extensive experience in endograft repair. The main outcome measures were the determination of the percentage of elective AAAs currently being treated with an EVG and the reasons for exclusion of patients from EVG placement. Results: A total of 162 patients underwent elective treatment of an AAA, 22 (14{\%}) with an EVG (14 bifurcated, eight tube) and 140 (86{\%}) with traditional resection. Indications for not proceeding with an EVG included insufficient proximal cuff in 29 patients (21{\%}), distal common iliac aneurysm or insufficient distal iliac neck in 29 patients (21{\%}), proximal neck too large for an EVG in 24 patients (17{\%}), symptomatic iliac stenosis in 23 patients (16{\%}), iliac stenosis precluding introducer passage in 17 patients (12{\%}), patient preference in 11 patients (8{\%}), and calcification, kink, or extensive thrombus involving the proximal neck precluding safe graft attachment in seven patients (5{\%}). Of the 22 patients treated with an EVG, three were converted to open resection, because of lilac stenosis in two patients and premature stent deployment in one patient (initial technical success rate, 86{\%}). Conclusion: Based on currently available technology, 80{\%} of patients were not candidates for an EVG because of proximal calcification, short aortic or distal cuff, coexisting distal iliac aneurysm, and stenotic iliac disease. Even with the use of adjunctive procedures, most patients still require open repair. Significant changes in design will be necessary to apply these devices to most patients with an AAA.",
    author = "Treiman, {G. S.} and Lawrence, {P. F.} and William Edwards and Galt, {S. W.} and Kraiss, {L. W.} and K. Bhirangi and V. Bernhard",
    year = "1999",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/S0741-5214(99)70177-1",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "30",
    pages = "68--75",
    journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
    issn = "0741-5214",
    publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - An assessment of the current applicability of the EVT endovascular graft for treatment of patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

    AU - Treiman, G. S.

    AU - Lawrence, P. F.

    AU - Edwards, William

    AU - Galt, S. W.

    AU - Kraiss, L. W.

    AU - Bhirangi, K.

    AU - Bernhard, V.

    PY - 1999/1/1

    Y1 - 1999/1/1

    N2 - Objective: To determine the percentage of elective abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs)/aortoiliac aneurysms that currently can be repaired with endovascular grafts (EVGs), the reasons for rejection of EVGs, and the future role of EVG in the treatment of AAA. Methods: From January 1997 to May 1998, patients at three hospitals (a university hospital, a university-affiliated teaching hospital, and a Veterans Administration hospital with university faculty and residents) were evaluated for EVGs as part of a national clinical trial with grafts manufactured by Endovascular Technologies (EVT, Menlo Park, Calif). All patients at two hospitals and patients treated by the participating surgeons at the third hospital were screened for EVG. Patients with AAAs that were ruptured, symptomatic, or involved renal or mesentric arteries and patients who declined treatment were excluded from the study. Evaluation included clinical examination, computed tomography scan, and selective arteriography. The decision to proceed with EVG was made by the vascular surgeon, with input and concurrence of medical personnel from a company with extensive experience in endograft repair. The main outcome measures were the determination of the percentage of elective AAAs currently being treated with an EVG and the reasons for exclusion of patients from EVG placement. Results: A total of 162 patients underwent elective treatment of an AAA, 22 (14%) with an EVG (14 bifurcated, eight tube) and 140 (86%) with traditional resection. Indications for not proceeding with an EVG included insufficient proximal cuff in 29 patients (21%), distal common iliac aneurysm or insufficient distal iliac neck in 29 patients (21%), proximal neck too large for an EVG in 24 patients (17%), symptomatic iliac stenosis in 23 patients (16%), iliac stenosis precluding introducer passage in 17 patients (12%), patient preference in 11 patients (8%), and calcification, kink, or extensive thrombus involving the proximal neck precluding safe graft attachment in seven patients (5%). Of the 22 patients treated with an EVG, three were converted to open resection, because of lilac stenosis in two patients and premature stent deployment in one patient (initial technical success rate, 86%). Conclusion: Based on currently available technology, 80% of patients were not candidates for an EVG because of proximal calcification, short aortic or distal cuff, coexisting distal iliac aneurysm, and stenotic iliac disease. Even with the use of adjunctive procedures, most patients still require open repair. Significant changes in design will be necessary to apply these devices to most patients with an AAA.

    AB - Objective: To determine the percentage of elective abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs)/aortoiliac aneurysms that currently can be repaired with endovascular grafts (EVGs), the reasons for rejection of EVGs, and the future role of EVG in the treatment of AAA. Methods: From January 1997 to May 1998, patients at three hospitals (a university hospital, a university-affiliated teaching hospital, and a Veterans Administration hospital with university faculty and residents) were evaluated for EVGs as part of a national clinical trial with grafts manufactured by Endovascular Technologies (EVT, Menlo Park, Calif). All patients at two hospitals and patients treated by the participating surgeons at the third hospital were screened for EVG. Patients with AAAs that were ruptured, symptomatic, or involved renal or mesentric arteries and patients who declined treatment were excluded from the study. Evaluation included clinical examination, computed tomography scan, and selective arteriography. The decision to proceed with EVG was made by the vascular surgeon, with input and concurrence of medical personnel from a company with extensive experience in endograft repair. The main outcome measures were the determination of the percentage of elective AAAs currently being treated with an EVG and the reasons for exclusion of patients from EVG placement. Results: A total of 162 patients underwent elective treatment of an AAA, 22 (14%) with an EVG (14 bifurcated, eight tube) and 140 (86%) with traditional resection. Indications for not proceeding with an EVG included insufficient proximal cuff in 29 patients (21%), distal common iliac aneurysm or insufficient distal iliac neck in 29 patients (21%), proximal neck too large for an EVG in 24 patients (17%), symptomatic iliac stenosis in 23 patients (16%), iliac stenosis precluding introducer passage in 17 patients (12%), patient preference in 11 patients (8%), and calcification, kink, or extensive thrombus involving the proximal neck precluding safe graft attachment in seven patients (5%). Of the 22 patients treated with an EVG, three were converted to open resection, because of lilac stenosis in two patients and premature stent deployment in one patient (initial technical success rate, 86%). Conclusion: Based on currently available technology, 80% of patients were not candidates for an EVG because of proximal calcification, short aortic or distal cuff, coexisting distal iliac aneurysm, and stenotic iliac disease. Even with the use of adjunctive procedures, most patients still require open repair. Significant changes in design will be necessary to apply these devices to most patients with an AAA.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032793840&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032793840&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/S0741-5214(99)70177-1

    DO - 10.1016/S0741-5214(99)70177-1

    M3 - Article

    VL - 30

    SP - 68

    EP - 75

    JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

    JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

    SN - 0741-5214

    IS - 1

    ER -