Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 156-163. doi: 10.2478/raon-2022-0008 156 research article Single centre experience with Excluder® stent graft; 17-year outcome Ziga Snoj1,2,*, Tjasa Tomazin1*, Vladka Salapura1,2, Dimitrij Kuhelj1 1 Radiology Institute, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 156-163. Received 19 December 2021 Accepted 16 February 2022 Correspondence to: Assoc. Prof. Dimitrij Kuhelj, M.D., Ph.D., Radiology Institute University Medical Centre Ljubljana, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Phone: +386 1 522 8530; E-mail: dimitrij.kuhelj@guest.arnes.si Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. * These authors contributed equally to this work; shared authorship. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Background. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become a mainstay of abdominal aorta aneurysm treatment. Long term follow-up on specific stent grafts is needed. Patients and methods. This study included 123 patients (104 men; mean age 73.0 years, range 51–89) with abdomi- nal aorta aneurysm, treated with Excluder® stent graft between October 2002 and June 2008. Periprocedural and follow-up data were retrieved by reviewing the records of our institution, while time and cause of death were retrieved from the National Institute of Public Health. If an abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture was listed as the cause of death, records were retrieved from the institution that issued the death certificate. Our primary goal was to assess the primary technical success rate, type 1 and type 2 endoleak, reintervention free survival, 30-day mortality, the overall survival and aneurysm rupture-free survival. Results. The median follow-up was 9.7 years (interquartile range, 4.6–13.8). The primary technical success was 98.4% and the 30-day mortality accounted for 0.8%. Secondary procedures were performed in 29 (23.6%) patients during the follow-up period. The one-, five-, ten-, fifteen- and seventeen-year overall survival accounted for 94.3%, 74.0%, 47.2%, 35.8% and 35.8%, while the aneurysm-related survival was 98.4%, 96.3%, 92.6%, 92.6%, 92.6%. In seven (5.7%) patients, abdominal aortic rupture was found as the primary cause of death during follow-up. Conclusions. Our data showed that EVAR with Excluder® stent graft offers good long-term results. More than 75% of patients can be treated completely percutaneously. Late ruptures do occur in the first ten years, raising awareness about regular medical controls. Key words: EVAR; long-term experience; Excluder® stent graft Introduction Endovascular management of the aorta with stent grafts (SG) was introduced in the late 1980 and ear- ly 1990’s1-3 with the intention of reducing mortality originating from aortic rupture by using a less in- vasive method as open surgery repair (OSR). In the last decades, endovascular abdominal aortic aneu- rysm repair (EVAR) has been expanding, surpass- ing OSR in the USA by 2003.4 Large series have already reported good short- and mid-term results after EVAR with a decreased 30-day mortality compared to OSR4-6, while long- term studies revealed no difference in long-term survival and reported a higher reintervention rate in the EVAR as opposed to the OSR group.7-9 While large series studies provide a great over- view on success and outcome, they provide little data and outcomes on specific SG. Such informa- tion plays a crucial role in the modification and Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 156-163. Snoj Z et al. / Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair 157 evolution of SGs.10 Thus, information on specific SG should be gathered to contribute to the ongoing evolution of SGs. Several SGs are used in Europe, and some were modified throughout the years, while others were newly designed.9,11,12 So far, SGs show excellent medium-term results, where- as their long-term efficacy and durability have not yet been proven.9 Excluder® SG (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) was introduced in 1997 and remains one of the most used devices for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) management. Regular modifications and improvements help to maintain Gore Excluder as a safe and durable treatment choice.13 Only a handful of studies re- ported outcomes on the first two generations of Excluder® SG.13-15 The longest follow-up reported for Excluder® SG is ten years.13 With the increasing life span of the general population, many patients live as far as decades after aneurysmal manage- ment. Detailed evaluation of long-term results, even beyond ten years, should therefore be con- ducted. The aim of our study was to present a long-term single centre experience with Excluder® SG. In de- tail, all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortali- ty, incidence of complications and re-interventions have been reported. Patients and methods The National Medical Ethics Committee approved the study (number 0120-120/2015-2). Between October 2002 and June 2008, 130 consecutive pa- tients with AAA were treated with Excluder® (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA). As seven patients were lost to follow-up, our study included 123 patients (104 men; mean age 73.0 years, range 51–89). EVAR procedure and follow-up The decision for endovascular management was made by a multidisciplinary board of vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, and angi- ologists. Treatment was considered if the maximal diameter of AAA surpassed 5.5 cm or if it grew more than 5 mm in six months. OSR in Slovenia is less expensive than endovascular management, so the consensus was made that mainly patients older than seventy, would be treated by EVAR if that proved to be technically feasible. Since this was the only treatment option for many of them, some were treated outside the instructions for use. Due to comorbidities that affected many of our pa- tients, also those unsuitable for OSR (polymorbid, those having previous abdominal surgeries, etc.) received EVAR. Emergency EVAR was performed in cases of anatomically suitable AAA rupture and in hemodynamically stable patients.16 The decision in these cases was left to the interventional radiolo- gist on duty. The procedures were performed by an experi- enced team of seven interventional radiologists with surgical back-up in case of failed percuta- neous access site or calcified access arteries. The standard follow-up protocol in our institution was CT angiography (CTA) at 3 and 12 months, and yearly thereafter, however the protocol was impacted with patients’ compliance. All proximal and distal type 1 endoleaks were treated; type 2 endoleaks were treated only in cases of > 5 mm an- eurysm growth. Data retrieval The follow-up extended until January 2021. The periprocedural and follow-up data were retrieved by reviewing the records of our institution. The time of death and International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 10th Revision, diagnosis with pro- cedure codes were retrieved from the Slovenian National Institute of Public Health. To ensure the maximal accuracy in patients assigned with ICD code I71.3 (AAA, ruptured), death records were retrieved from the institution that issued the death certificate, followed by a detailed examination of the records. Based on the findings, the consensus on the cause of death was made (Table 1). The primary technical success was defined as a successful introduction and deployment of the device without the need for secondary procedure within 24 hours after EVAR.13,17 A secondary procedure was defined as any en- dovascular or surgical procedure related to fail- ure or complication of EVAR.17 Endoleak has been described in publications by Chaikof et al.17 Post- implantation syndrome was considered if the clini- cal and biochemical expression of an inflammatory response following EVAR expressed C-reactive protein (CRP) > 8 mg/L and body temperature of ≥ 38.0°C.18 The drop of hemoglobin (Hb) was con- sidered if the values were reduced ≥ 15.0% from the baseline value and/or ≤ 120 g/L after the pro- cedure.19 The primary objective was to assess the primary technical success rate, type 1 and type 2 endoleak, reintervention free survival, 30-days mortality, Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 156-163. Snoj Z et al. / Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair158 overall survival and aneurysm rupture free sur- vival. Statistical analysis To calculate the patients’ survival, the Kaplan- Meier method was used (any cause and aneurysm related survival). The influence of age and gender on the outcome was assessed with the Cox regres- sion model to calculate hazard ratios with 95% con- fidence intervals. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Data analysis was performed with SPSS v.22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). Results The median follow-up was 9.7 years (interquartile range, 4.6 - 13.8). Patients were followed-up for up to seventeen years. The comorbidities of this cohort are shown in Table 2. The emergency repair was performed in five (4.1%) patients. One of them later died due to a recurrent AAA rupture, while the other causes of death were trauma and Alzheimer disease. Two of these patients are still alive more than twelve years after the aneurysmal rupture. Technical success rate The primary technical success rate was 98.4% on account of 2 complications; in one patient, the pos- terior tibial artery was occluded due to coil dislo- cation during inferior mesenteric artery emboliza- tion and in another patient, a stent was implanted in subclavian artery after failed transaxillary renal stenting. Endoleak was observed in thirty-five (28.5%) pa- tients, type 1 in thirteen (10.0%) patients, and type 2 in twenty-four (18.5%) patients. Two patients had both type 1 and type 2 endoleak. No other type of endoleak was found in the members of the cohort. In five (4.1%) patients a renal stent was implant- ed during EVAR due to stenosed renal artery. TABLE 1. Brief presentation of patients with retrieved I71.3 ICD codes from the National Institute of Public Health and assigned code after revision Patient No. Time after EVAR Reported History Retrieved ICD-10 Code ICD-10 Code after Revision 1 51 months Rupture of AAA and unsuccessful aortobifemoral bypass I71.3 I71.3 2 2 days Rupture of AAA after EVAR I71.3 I71.3 3 72.5 months Rupture of AAA and unsuccessful resuscitation I71.3 I71.3 4 16.5 months Succumbed to high fever due to prolonged and unsuccessful treatment of spondylodiscitis; graft showed imaging findings consistent with infection I71.3 M46.4 5 50.1 months AAA rupture and placement of proximal extension cuff; 2 months after secondary procedure AAA rupture and exsanguination to peritoneal cavity I71.3 I71.3 6 1.5 months Succumbed to nosocomial pneumonia and sepsis I71.3 J18.9 7 117.4 months Graft extension 36.7 months after EVAR; 64.2 months after EVAR control CT scan I71.3 I71.3 8 3.4 months 1.2 months after EVAR CTA scan and right stent graft limb lysis; additional 2.2 months later sudden severe abdominal pain and unsuccessful resuscitation I71.3 I71.3 9 18,9 months Cardiorespiratory arrest, no history of abdominal pain. I71.3 I46.9 10 2 months Succumbed to sepsis due to septic arthritis, CT and scintigraphy excluded stent graft infection I71.3 M00.8 11 21.9 months 11.4 months after EVAR leak type 2 on control CT scan I71.3 I71.3 AAA = abdominal aortic aneurysm; CTA = CT angiography; EVAR = endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair TABLE 2. Comorbidities in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm Comorbidity Number of patients Hypertension 103 (83.7%) Dyslipidemia 70 (56.9%) History of smoking 57 (46.3%) PAOD 32 (26.0%) History of MI 17 (13.8%) Diabetes mellitus 16 (13.0%) Carotid disease 11 (8.9%) History of CABG 9 (7.3%) History of CVI/TIA 6 (4.9%) CABG = coronary artery bypass graft; CVI = cerebrovascular infarction; MI = myocardial infarction; PAOD = peripheral artery occlusive disease; TIA = transitory ischemic attack Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 156-163. Snoj Z et al. / Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair 159 A percutaneous hemostasis was achieved in ninety-four (76.4%) patients (completely percu- taneous EVAR), surgical hemostasis in thirteen (10.6%) patients and combined in sixteen (13.0%) patients. Thirty-seven secondary procedures were per- formed in twenty-nine (23.6%) patients during the follow-up period, the majority being endovascular (Table 3). Mean time to secondary intervention was 36.4 ± 31.1 months. In nearly half of the cases (four- teen patients), SG extensions, seven proximal and seven distal, were implanted (Table 3). In fourteen (11.4%) patients, two secondary procedures were performed; the most frequently repeated ones be- ing translumbar sac embolization (five patients), followed by SG extension, and later translumbar sac embolization (four patients). Two aortobifemoral bypasses were performed as an emergency procedure due to aneurysm rup- ture, and two as an elective procedure due to SG infection (Table 3). 24-hour morbidity In the first twenty-four hours after EVAR, 13 (10.6%) patients showed signs of an inflammatory reaction (CRP: 114.9 ± 54.2 mg/L, range 50–234; increased body temperature). The average hospitalization pe- riod for patients who developed post-implantation syndrome was 3.8 days (range 3–8 days). Ten (8.1%) patients received antibiotic treatment; two (1.6%) had X-ray proven pneumonia. In one case, pneu- monia was the cause of definitive deterioration and death as well as the cause of the longest hospital stay (45 days). In twelve (9.8%) patients, a drop of Hb was observed; four (3.3%) received blood trans- fusion due to a significant drop caused by hemo- static problems at the vascular access site. In twelve patients (9.8%), a groin hematoma was detected. 30-day mortality and long-term survival The 30-day mortality was 0.8% due to AAA rup- ture in one patient on the second day. The average length of hospital stay was 4.3 days (range 2–45 days). Long-term survival is shown in Figure 1. Younger patients (≤ 69 years old) lived longer than older patients (≥ 70 years old) (Hazard Ratio = 1.34; 95% confidence interval: 1.14–2.23; P = 0.02). However, when a division in the same age groups was performed for aneurysm-related survival, no such difference was observed (P > 0.05). Gender did not affect any cause of survival or aneurysm rupture related survival (both P > 0.05). TABLE 3. Secondary procedures Type of treatment Number of patients treated Time form EVAR to treatment (months) Interventional procedure Stent graft extension 14 (11.4 %) 31.8 ± 35.7 Translumbar sac embolisation 13 (10.6 %) 60.2 ± 35.6 Thrombolysis of iliac limb 3 (2.4 %) 1.9 ± 1.4 Surgery 4 aortobifemoral bypass 7 (5.7 %) 48.5 ± 47.91 thrombectomy 2 hemicolectomy FIGURE 1. (A) Long-term survival; (B) survival without secondary procedure with subdivision according to the type of secondary procedure. CV = cardiovascular; IR = interventional; Sec. = secondary A B Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 156-163. Snoj Z et al. / Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair160 The one-, five-, ten-, fifteen- and seventeen-year overall survival was 94.3%, 74.0%, 47.2%, 35.8% and 35.8%, while aneurysm-related survival was 98.4%, 96.3%, 92.6%, 92.6%, 92.6% (Figure 1). Causes of deaths We identified seventy-nine deaths (64.2%) after the median follow-up of 9.7 years (Figure 1). In eleven (8.9%) patients the ICD-10 diagnosis code I71.3 (AAA, ruptured) was retrieved from the National Institute of Public Health (Table 1). However, after a revision, AAA rupture was assigned as the pri- mary cause of death in only seven (5.7%) patients. They all died within the first ten years following the procedure. After the revision, the adjusted causes of deaths were as follows: twenty-nine (36.7%) patients died of cardiovascular related causes, twenty-five (31.6%) died due to malignan- cy related causes, eight (10.1%) died of infectious related causes, seven (8.9%) died due to respira- tory related causes, and three (3.8%) died because of trauma. The average time of death due to cancer was 5.4 years (range 1.0–14.0 years) after EVAR. The most commonly diagnosed causes of death were pulmonary cancer (7 patients), abdominal cancer (5), prostate cancer (4), breast cancer (3) and plasmocytoma (3). Discussion Our cross-sectional study presents a cohort of pa- tients with long-term follow-up, up to 17 years, af- ter EVAR treatment with Excluder® SG. More than three quarters of our patients were successfully treated completely percutaneously, confirming the minimal invasiveness of EVAR, which is one of the key benefits of endovascular management. Still, surgical backup is essential in centres using percutaneous sutures, since the con- version rate in the previous series was nearly 10%.20 A good primary technical success rate was achieved and is comparable to the previously published pa- per on Excluder® SG.13 In the first twenty-four hours after EVAR, one in ten patients showed signs of in- flammatory reaction. These features of systemic in- flammatory response are known as post-implanta- tion syndrome, which is reportedly associated with prolonged hospitalization.18 However, our data did not confirm this, since the average length of hospi- tal stay in our patients was 4.3 days. In the EUROSTAR registry (one of the first large series dated in 1996), the reported 30-day mortality was 3.4%.21 In more recent large series of studies, the reported 30-day mortality ranges from 1.2% to 2.6%.7,22-24 These rates are even lower in studies reporting outcomes on Excluder® SG.13-15 The excel- lent results were confirmed by our data, observ- ing less than 1% 30-day mortality. The decreasing number of deaths in the first thirty days can prob- ably be attributed to technical improvements, as first-generation devices were more robust, as well as to superior operators’ experience.25 The most common secondary procedures were interventions treating endoleaks, namely SG ex- tensions and translumbar sac embolizations.26 This is consistent with the previously published data, since endoleak is common and EVAR-specific com- plication that occurs in up to 30% of cases using early-generation SG.27,28 Newer studies report a 19–33% reintervention rate in the follow-ups for up to fifteen years after EVAR.29-32 The results of our study are within the reported range with nearly a quarter of patients needing a secondary procedure. A study on Excluder® SG with a ten-year follow- up period reported 85% secondary procedure free survival, a result that exceeds ours.13 The recently published multicenter study by Geraedts et al.33 reported a mean time of twenty-eight months be- fore a secondary procedure, a time frame that is 8 months shorter than ours. The differences in sec- ondary procedure free survival and mean time to secondary procedure can be attributed to indica- tions which may vary between institutions as the rates of endoleaks are comparable in the studies, while the rates of secondary procedures differ.13-15,33 Overall, relatively high reintervention rates persist despite the surgeon’s experience, graft technology and imaging improvements34, emphasizing the im- portance of lifelong imaging surveillance in corre- lation with clinical examinations.35 Since the life expectancy of the general popu- lation has been increasing, the optimal treatment choice of AAA is essential for long-term survival. A recent systematic review7 confirmed the supe- riority of the 30-day survival rate after EVAR as opposed to OSR and indicated a similar long-term survival after ten years. The study with the long- est follow-up on Excluder® to our knowledge fol- lowed patients for up to ten years.13 The results of the overall survival reported in our study coincide with the previously published time points in re- search on Excluder®.13-15 Our study, on the other hand, also provides an insight into the outcome even beyond a time point of ten years. Long-term survival is also affected by the patients’ age at the time of the procedure, since the life expectancy of Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 156-163. Snoj Z et al. / Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair 161 older patients is shorter than that of younger ones. In accordance with the findings of several studies, our results confirmed that patients’ age signifi- cantly influenced overall survival.36-38 However, in cases of unfavorable anatomy, OSR has been proven superior to EVAR regarding the long-term survival.39 Additional caution should therefore be taken when considering the standard EVAR proce- dure for patients with anatomy outside the instruc- tions.39 Within our institution, each patient was examined by a multidisciplinary board to ensure the optimal treatment regime. Patients who were unfit for OSR were sometimes treated outside the instructions for use, since EVAR was the only treat- ment option for them. The risk of an aneurysmal rupture in these patients was equivalent to the pos- sibility of a suboptimal procedure. Similar results to ours on aneurysm rupture related survival after EVAR were published by Verzini et al., however Zenith SG was used.9 Studies on Excluder® SG even reported zero aneurysm- related deaths up to ten years13,14, while one study stressed a potential bias on aneurysm-related deaths due to retrospective data collection.13 Based on our results as well as those previously pub- lished, patients’ surveillance is most important in the first ten years after EVAR, although opposing conclusions have been drawn in some other stud- ies where secondary aneurysm rupture occurred at any period beyond ten years after EVAR.40,41 This is probably caused by the progression of the dis- ease as well as by material failure due to constant forces present in the aorta, distortion of anatomy due to new hemodynamics, dilatation of the com- mon iliac arteries or progress of previous iliac ar- teries ectasia.42-44 The follow-up protocol should be carefully adjusted since higher post-EVAR imaging frequency has been associated with a lower risk of death but attributed to higher cost and irradiation dose.4,24,45 The current recommendations propose imaging at 30 days after the procedure and yearly thereafter if no complications are detected.46 The imaging modalities used for surveillance include CT angiography considered as the gold stand- ard modality, duplex ultrasonography and mag- netic resonance angiography. A large-scale study based on the nationwide English Hospital Episode Statistics database showed an increased risk of postoperative abdominal and all cancers in patients after EVAR in comparison to OSR.47 However, the meta-analysis dating from the same year48 reported no significant difference in the risk of death due to cancer between the EVAR and the OSR group. This report draws similar conclusions to our findings, as cancer-related mortality in Slovenia accounts for approximately 30%49,50, and as a similar rate of cancer-related deaths has also been observed in our study. The most important limitation of our study is the retrospectivity and, consequently, the limitation in data acquisition. No aneurysm specific parameters could therefore be determined, and a potential sac growth could not be evaluated. The biases may be anticipated in retrospective research and should be carefully interpreted as noted in previous studies on Excluder® SG.13,14 However, our results were acquired by real-life data in consecutive patients. Additionally, the research thoroughly examined aneurysm-related deaths to maximize the accuracy of data in our study. To reduce follow-up biases and to be able to process reliable data, we included only patients with obtainable data in the follow-up period. Since only a handful of emergency EVAR repairs were performed in the cohort, only descrip- tive information is provided. Conclusions Our data proved that EVAR with Excluder® offers good long-term results. More than 75% of patients can be treated completely percutaneously. No late ruptures occur within the first ten years, raising awareness of the importance of regular medical controls. Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to the in- terventional radiology team at our department for attentive care and involvement in treating patients. In this regard we would like to especially thank R. Dežman, P. Kavčič, T. Ključevšek, D. Nuredini, P. Popovič, M. Stankovič, M. Šurlan and M. Štabuc. References 1. Volodos NL, Karpovich IP, Troyan VI, Kalashnikova YuV, Shekhanin VE, Ternyuk NE, et al. Clinical experience of the use of self-fixating synthetic prostheses for remote endoprosthetics of the thoracic and the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries through the femoral artery as intraoperative en- doprosthesis for aorta reconstruction. Vasa Suppl 1991; 33: 93-5. PMID: 1788781 2. Parodi JC, Palmaz JC, Barone HD. Transfemoral intraluminal graft implanta- tion for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg 1991; 5: 491-9. doi: 10.1007/BF02015271 Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 156-163. Snoj Z et al. / Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair162 3. Dake MD, Miller DC, Semba CP, Mitchell RS, Walker PJ, Liddell RP. Transluminal placement of endovascular stent-grafts for the treatment of descendent thoracic aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1729-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199412293312601 4. Schermerhorn ML, O’Malley AJ, Jhaveri A, Cotterill P, Pomposelli F, Landon BE. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 464-74. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa0707348 5. Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Kwong GP, Powell JT, Thompson SG; EVAR trial participants. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 843-8. Comment in: Lancet 2004; 364: 818-20. doi: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(04)16979-1 6. Giles KA, Pomposelli F, Hamdan A, Wyers M, Jhaveri A, Schermerhorn ML. Decrease in total aneurysm-related deaths in the era of endovascular an- eurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49: 543-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.09.067 7. Bulder RMA, Bastiaannet E, Hamming JF, Lindeman JHN. Meta-analysis of long-term survival after elective endovascular or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg 2019; 106: 523-33. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11123 8. United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators; Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT, Thompson SG, Epstein D, Sculpher MJ. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1863-71. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0909305 9. Verzini F, Romano L, Parlani G, Isernia G, Simonte G, Loschi D, et al. Fourteen- year outcomes of amdominal aortic endovascular repair with the Zenith stent graft. J Vasc Surg 2017; 65: 318-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.07.117 10. Verzini F, Isernia G, De Rango P, Simonte G, Parlani G, Loschi D, et al. Abdominal aortic endografting beyond the trials: a 15-year single-center experience comparing newer to older generation stent-grafts. J Endovasc Ther 2014; 21: 439-47. doi: 10.1583/13-4599MR.1 11. Mehta M, Valdés FE, Nolte T, Mishkel GJ, Jordan WD, Gray B, et al; A Pivotal Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of the Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System Investigators. One-year outcomes from an international study of the Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System for endo- vascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2014; 59: 65-73.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j. jvs.2013.06.065 12. Hogg ME, Morasch MD, Park T, Flannery WD, Makaroun MS, Cho JS. Long- term sac behavior after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with the Excluder low-permeability endoprosthesis. J Vasc Surg 2011; 53: 1178-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.11.045 13. Poublon CG, Holewijn S, van Sterkenburg SMM, Tielliu IFJ, Zeebregts CJ, Reijnen MMPJ. Long-term outcome of the GORE EXCLUDER AAA endo- prosthesis for treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017; 28: 637-44.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.01.012 14. Maleux G, Claes H, Van Holsbeeck A, Janssen R, Laenen A, Heye S, et al. Ten years of experience with the GORE EXCLUDER® stent-graft for the treatment of aortic and iliac aneurysms: outcomes from a single center study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2012; 35: 498-507. doi: 10.1007/s00270- 011-0235-6 15. Pratesi G, Piffaretti G, Verzini F, De Blasis G, Castelli P, Pratesi C. Ten-year outcome analysis of the Italian Excluder Registry with the Gore Excluder endograft for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2018; 67: 740-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.07.133 16. Choo SJ, Jeon YB, Oh SS, Shinn SH. Outcomes of emergency endovascular versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. Ann Surg Treat Res 2021; 100: 291-7. doi: 10.4174/astr.2021.100.5.291 17. Chaikof EL, Blankensteijn JD, Harris PL, White GH, Zarins CK, Bernhard VM, et al. Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2002; 35: 1048-60. doi: 10.1067/mva.2002.123763 18. Arnaoutoglou E, Kouvelos G, Koutsoumpelis A, Patelis N, Lazaris A, Matsagkas M. An update on the inflammatory response after endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Mediators Inflamm 2015; 2015: 945035. doi: 10.1155/2015/945035 19. Diehm N, Benenati JF, Becker GJ, Quesada R, Tsoukas AI, Katzen BT, et al. Anemia is associated with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) size and de- creased long-term survival after endovascular AAA repair. J Vasc Surg 2007; 46: 676-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.06.027 20. Kuhelj D, Salapura V, Boc N. Haemostasis for 568 large femoral artery ac- cess sites outcomes and predictors of success. VASA 2014; 43: 62-8. doi: 10.1024/0301-1526/a000329 21. Harris PL. The highs and lows of endovascular aneurysm repair: the first two years of the Eurostar Registry. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1999; 81: 161-5. PMID: 10364946 22. Yin K, Locham SS, Schermerhorn ML, Malas MB. Trends of 30-day mortality and morbidities in endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneu- rysm during the last decade. J Vasc Surg 2019; 69: 64-73. doi: 10.1016/j. jvs.2018.04.032 23. Chang RW, Goodney P, Tucker LY, Okuhn S, Hua H, Rhoades A, et al. Ten- year results of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from a large multicenter registry. J Vasc Surg 2013; 58: 324-32. doi: 10.1016/j. jvs.2013.01.051 24. Troisi N, Torsello G, Donas KP, Austermann M. Endurant stent-graft: a 2-year, single-center experience with a new commercially available device for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther 2010; 17: 439- 48. doi: 10.1583/10-3090.1 25. Yin K, Locham SS, Schermerhorn ML, Malas MB. Trends of 30-day mortality and morbidities in endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneu- rysm during the last decade. J Vasc Surg 2019; 69: 64-73. doi: 10.1016/j. jvs.2018.04.032 26. Daye D, Walker TG. Complications of endovascular aneurysm repair of the thoracic and abdominal aorta: evaluation and management. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2018; 8: 138-56. doi: 10.21037/cdt.2017.09.17 27. van Lammeren GW, Fioole B, Waasdorp EJ, Moll FL, van Herwaarden JA, de Vries JP. Long-term follow-up of secondary interventions after endovascular aneurysm repair with the AneuRx endoprosthesis: a single-center experi- ence. J Endovasc Ther 2010; 17: 408-15. doi: 10.1583/10-3086.1 28. Sharma A, Sethi P, Gupta K. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Interv Cardiol Clin 2020; 9: 153-68. doi: 10.1016/j.iccl.2019.12.005 29. Columbo JA, Martinez-Camblor P, O’Malley AJ, Suckow BD, Hoel AW, Stone DH, et al. Long-term reintervention after endovascular abdomi- nal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Surg 2021; 274: 179-85. doi: 10.1097/ SLA.0000000000003446 30. Mehta M, Sternbach Y, Taggert JB, Kreienberg PB, Roddy SP, Paty PS, et al. Long-term outcomes of secondary procedures after endovascular aneu- rysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2010; 52: 1442-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.06.110 31. Wanken ZJ, Barnes JA, Trooboff SW, Columbo JA, Jella TK, Kim DJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term reintervention after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2020; 72: 1122- 31. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.02.030 32. Li B, Khan S, Salata K, Hussain MA, de Mestral C, Greco E, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes of endovascular ver- sus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 2019; 70: 954-69. e30. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.01.076 33. Geraedts ACM, Mulay S, Vahl A, Wisselink W, Koelemay MJW, Balm R. Secondary interventions and long-term follow-up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg 2021; 71: 381-91. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.07.042 34. Stilo F, Montelione N, Catanese V, Vigliotti RC, Spinelli F. Minimally invasive open conversion for late EVAR failure. Ann Vasc Surg 2020; 63: 92-8. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.08.087 35. Hammond CJ, Shah AH, Snoddon A. Patel JV, Scott DJA. Mortality and rates of secondary intervention after EVAR in an unselected population: influence of simple clinical categories and implications for surveillance. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2016; 39: 815-23. doi: 10.1007/s00270-016-1303-8 36. Lifeline Registry of EVAR Publications Committee. Lifeline registry of en- dovascular aneurysm repair: long-term primary outcome measures. J Vasc Surg 2005; 42: 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2005.05.012 37. Torsello G, Osada N, Florek HJ, Horsch S, Kortmann H, Luska G, et al. Long- term outcome after Talent endograft implantation for aneurysms of the abdominal aorta: a multicenter retrospective study. J Vasc Sur 2006; 43: 277-84; discussion 284. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2005.09.037 38. Quinney BE, Parmar GM, Nagre SB, Patterson M, Passman MA, Taylor S, et al. Long-term single institution comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair and open aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2011; 54: 1592-7; dis- cussion 1597-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.06.114 Radiol Oncol 2022; 56(2): 156-163. Snoj Z et al. / Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair 163 39. Charbonneau P, Hongku K, Herman CR, Habib M, Girsowicz E, Doonan RJ, et al. Long-term survival after endovascular and open repair in patients with anatomy outside instructions for use criteria for endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2019; 70: 1823-30. Erratum in: J Vasc Surg 2020; 71: 2189. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.01.081 40. Patel R, Sweeting MJ, Powell JT, Greenhalgh RM; EVAR Trial Investigators. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in 15-years’ follow-up of the UK endovascular aneurysm repair trial 1 (EVAR trial 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 2366-74. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(16)31135-7 41. Patel R, Powell JT, Sweeting MJ, Epstein DM, Barrett JK, Greenhalgh RM. The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2018; 22: 1-132. doi: 10.3310/hta22050 42. Asenbaum U, Schoder M, Schwartz E, Langs G, Baltzer P, Wolf F, et al. Stent-graft surface movement after endovascular aneurysm repair: baseline parameters for prediction, and association with migration and stent-graft-related endoleaks. Eur Radiol 2019; 29: 6385-95. doi: 10.1007/ s00330-019-06282-w 43. Orra HA, Puech-Leão P, Silva ES, Silva DG. Aneurysm pulsatility after endo- vascular exclusion--an experimental study using human aortic aneurysms. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2008; 63: 67-70. doi: 10.1590/s1807-59322008000100012 44. Falkensammer J, Hakaim AG, Andrew Oldenburg W, Neuhauser B, Paz- Fumagalli R, McKinney JM, et al. Natural history of the iliac arteries after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and suitability of ectatic iliac arteries as a distal sealing zone. J Endovasc Ther 2007; 14: 619-24. doi: 10.1177/152660280701400503 45. de Mestral C, Croxford R, Eisenberg N, Roche-Nagle G. The impact of compliance with imaging follow-up on mortality after endovascular ab- dominal aortic aneurysm repair: a population based cohort study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2017; 54: 315-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.06.018 46. Smith T, Quencer KB. Best practice guidelines: imaging surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 214: 1165-74. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.22197 47. Markar SR, Vidal-Diez A, Sounderajah V, Mackenzie H, Hanna GB, Thompson M, et al. A population-based cohort study examining the risk of abdominal cancer after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2019; 69: 1776-85.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.09.058 48. Antoniou GA, Antoniou SA, Torella F. Editor’s choice – endovascular vs. open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm: systematic review and meta-analysis of updated peri-operative and long term data of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2020; 59: 385-97. doi: 10.1016/j. ejvs.2019.11.030 49. Zadnik V, Primic Zakelj M, Lokar K, Jarm K, Ivanus U, Zagar T. Cancer burden in slovenia with the time trends analysis. Radiol Oncol 2017; 51: 47-55. doi:10.1515/raon-2017-0008 50. Niksić D, Kurspahić-Mujicić A, Pilav A, Niksić H. Cancer mortality, recent trends and perspectives. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 2006; 6: 67-71. doi: 10.17305/ bjbms.2006.3125