To critically examine the role of significant carotid stenosis in the pathogenesis of postoperative stroke following cardiac operations.
A substantial number of secondary interventions are performed in patients who have undergone endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Rates of secondary intervention range from 10% to 18%, with most problems addressed with endovascular procedures. The authors sought to determine the indications for secondary interventions after EVAR in their institution and the effect of these interventions on long-term survival.From January 1997 to December 2007, 832 patients underwent EVAR. All grafts placed in this study were Food and Drug Administration approved and included the Cook Zenith graft, Gore Excluder, Medtronic AneuRx graft, and the Endologix Powerlink graft. Grafts were placed by vascular surgeons in the operating room using fixed imaging assistance. (The article did not specify who performed catheter-based secondary interventions.) Patients undergoing secondary interventions were stratified according to indications and the specific nature of the secondary intervention and treatment. Study end points were aneurysm-related and overall survival, and freedom from secondary intervention. At a mean follow-up of 35 months, 91 patients (11%) underwent 131 secondary interventions. There were no demographic features that predicted the need for a secondary intervention. The 5-year survival from secondary interventions was 80%, and 76% of the secondary interventions were accomplished with a catheter-based approach. Secondary interventions were successful Ͼ80% of the time for all indications except type II endoleak, where the initial secondary intervention was successful only 34% of the time. Multivariate analysis predicting secondary interventions identified aneurysm sac size Ͼ5.5 cm (odds ratio, 2.1; P ϭ .004) and preprocedure coil embolization of hypogastric or inferior mesenteric artery (odds ratio, 2.1; P ϭ .008) as predictors of secondary interventions. The 5-year actuarial survival was 70% and aneurysm-related survival was 97.5%. There was no survival difference in patients who underwent secondary interventions compared with those who did not.Comment: This is a large series of EVARs from an institution known for excellence in treatment of aneurysm disease. The authors report a rate of secondary interventions is in the low range of those previously reported. There is no obvious explanation for this in the data presented. Clearly, secondary interventions after EVAR are at the discretion of the attending surgeon, and some centers will have a more conservative approach than others. It is interesting to note that an aneurysm Ͼ5.5 cm was associated with an increased need for secondary interventions. A cynic might point out that secondary interventions are more common when EVAR was actually indicated in the first place! The article would have been strengthened by more details regarding patient follow-up. We do not know how many of the patients in this series were followed per protocol, how many computed tomography scans were performed per patient, or how many patients were lost to follow-up. It perhaps would have been preferable ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.