Identifying and addressing the limitations of EVAR technology

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has improved over the last two decades. Approximately 80% of the patients presenting with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is nowadays primarily treated with EVAR.

Areas covered: In this review, the differences between endovascular and open repair, the clinical characteristics needed for EVAR, the role of clinical imaging and the developments in EVAR technology will be discussed. Early mortality is lower in EVAR as compared to open repair, whereas this benefit is lost after 3 years postoperatively. EVAR comes with a high reintervention rate, with endoleak being the most important predictive factor for reintervention. Expanding technical possibilities have allowed surgeons to choose from a palate of endovascular approaches in aneurysm patients with challenging anatomies.

Expert commentary: Although EVAR has taken a giant leap forward in development, the new developments have seemed to surpass the long-term limitations with older devices. It is important to start focusing on the current limitations of EVAR, in particular the durability of devices in the human variable anatomic and dynamic environment.

KEYWORDS:

• Abdominal aortic aneurysm
• endoprosthesis
• endovascular aortic therapy
• stent graft

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.