No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

EVAS enhances vorticity proximal to the seal zone, especially with lower positioning of the device and in larger neck diameters. Endobags just below the renal artery affect the flow profile in a minor area of this artery in 24- and 28-mm necks, while lower stent positioning does not influence the renal artery flow profile.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) on the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) and central pressure waveform, through 1-year follow-up. Materials and Methods: A tonometric device was used to measure cfPWV and estimate the central pressure waveform in 20 patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm scheduled for elective EVAR. The evaluated central hemodynamic parameters included the central pressures, the augmentation index (AIx), and the subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR). AIx quantifies the contribution of reflected wave to the central systolic pressure, whereas SEVR describes the myocardial perfusion relative to the cardiac workload. Measurements were performed before EVAR, at discharge, and 6 weeks and 1 year after EVAR. Results: CfPWV was increased at discharge (12.4±0.4 vs 11.3±0.5 m/s at baseline; p=0.005) and remained elevated over the course of 1-year follow-up (6 weeks: cfPWV = 12.2±0.5 m/s; 1 year: cfPWV = 12.2±0.7 m/s, p<0.05). After an initial drop in systolic central pressure at discharge, all the central pressures increased thereafter up to 1 year, without significant differences compared with baseline. The same was observed for the AIx and SEVR. Conclusion: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair caused an increase in pulse wave velocity compared with baseline, which remained elevated through 1 year follow-up, which may be related to an increased cardiovascular risk. However, no differences in central pressure, augmentation index, and subendocardial viability ration were observed during follow-up.