Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Predictors of adverse events after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A meta-analysis of case reports

  • Felix JV Schlösser1, 2,
  • Geert JMG van der Heijden1Email author,
  • Yolanda van der Graaf1,
  • Frans L Moll2 and
  • Hence JM Verhagen3
Journal of Medical Case Reports20082:317

DOI: 10.1186/1752-1947-2-317

Received: 16 October 2007

Accepted: 30 September 2008

Published: 30 September 2008

Abstract

Introduction

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is a life-saving intervention. Nevertheless, complications have a major impact. We review the evidence from case reports for risk factors of complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Case presentation

We selected case reports from PubMed reporting original data on adverse events after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Extracted risk factors were: age, sex, aneurysm diameter, comorbidities, re-interventions, at least one follow-up visit being missed or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient. Extracted outcomes were: death, rupture and (non-)device-related complications.

In total 113 relevant articles were selected. These reported on 173 patients. A fatal outcome was reported in 15% (N = 26) of which 50% came after an aneurysm rupture (N = 13). Non-fatal aneurysm rupture occurred in 15% (N = 25). Endoleaks were reported in 52% of the patients (N = 90). In half of the patients with a rupture no prior endoleak was discovered during follow-up. In 83% of the patients one or more re-interventions were performed (N = 143). Mortality was higher among women (risk ratio 2.9; 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 6.0), while the presence of comorbidities was strongly associated with both ruptures (risk ratio 1.6; 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 2.9) and mortality (risk ratio 2.1; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.7). Missing one or more follow-up visits (≥1) or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient was strongly related to both ruptures (risk ratio 4.7; 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 7.0) and mortality (risk ratio 3.8; 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 8.3).

Conclusion

Female gender, the presence of comorbidities and at least one follow-up visit being missed or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient appear to increase the risk for mortality after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Larger aneurysm diameter, higher age and multimorbidity at the time of surgery appear to increase the risk for rupture and other complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. These risk factors deserve further attention in future studies.

Introduction

Up to the last decade of the last century, open surgery was the procedure of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Today, however, a minimally invasive endovascular procedure can be performed. Randomised trials show that short-term survival is better after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) than after open AAA repair [1, 2]. After 2 years of follow-up, the total cumulative mortality in both groups is the same owing to excess mortality in the endovascularly treated group [3, 4]. Randomised trials provide generally good evidence of causal effects of treatments, but the quality of evidence on the risk of adverse events is less satisfactory. This may often be the result of the selection of relatively healthy patients and the limited length of follow-up.

Extensive and long-lasting follow-up screening is generally required after EVAR. These extensive follow-up examinations may be a considerable burden for patients and health care providers, but they are necessary for early detection of postoperative complications [5, 6]. Most complications are graft related and include graft migration, endoleak, graft thrombosis and AAA rupture. Rehospitalisation and re-intervention is necessary to treat many of these complications. Two European registries have reported a 3% risk of complications per year and a 10% risk of re-interventions per year [79]. Counterintuitively, registry data have shown that the risk of complications is significantly lower in patients who missed at least one follow-up visit compared with patients who attended all visits [10]. It is likely that these results are the consequence of selective surveillance in patients who are at increased risk for complications. Currently, no agreement exists on the optimal post-procedural surveillance regimen and the impact of frequent follow-up visits on the risk of complications after EVAR [1113].

Evidence regarding the risk of complications after EVAR and predictors of these risks is lacking. Better insight into risk factors for complications after EVAR may lead to improvements in the efficiency of follow-up and patient selection. The aim of this study is to provide more insight into determinants of prognosis after EVAR by unique means: a meta-analysis of case reports.

Data sources and study selection

The PubMed-Medline database was searched for case reports published up to January 2006. The following search string was used: ((('aorta' and 'aneurysm') or ('Aortic Aneurysms, Abdominal' [MESH])) and 'endovascular' and 'Case Reports' [pt]).

Titles, abstracts and full-text publications were obtained and screened for original data on adverse events after EVAR. Exclusion criteria were: 1, non-abdominal aneurysm; 2, inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysm; 3, AAA rupture treatment. No language restrictions were applied. Full-text versions were obtained of all remaining articles.

Data extraction and quality assessment

The following data about risk factors were extracted from the selected articles: age, gender, AAA diameter, comorbidities, endograft brand and type, one or more follow-up visits being missed and refusal of a re-intervention by the patient. The following data about clinical endpoints were documented: death, device-related complications and non-device-related complications. When a patient experienced more than one complication, all complications were documented. Device-related complications included: AAA rupture, endoleak types I, II, III, IV and V (endotension), graft infection, graft migration, graft thrombosis, graft kinking, stent wire fracture and technical mal-deployment. Non-device-related complications included cardiac, pulmonary and renal complications, fistula, ischaemia, multiple organ failure and other non-device-related complications.

Data synthesis and analysis

Risk factors were associated with clinical endpoints by cross-tabulation. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Episheet [14]. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Case presentation

The Medline search strategy resulted in a total of 353 case reports. After excluding articles on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 113 case reports remained which reported original data about 173 patients who had undergone endovascular AAA repair.

Table 1 shows baseline characteristics of the study population. Eighty percent of the patients were male (N = 138), 14% female (N = 24) and no data were available about gender in 6.3% of the patients (N = 11). The mean AAA diameter prior to device implantation was 60 mm (standard deviation 11; range 42 to 95). The AAA diameter was smaller than 5.5 cm in 25% of all patients (N = 43). The mean age was 73 years (range: 52 years to 93 years).
Table 1

Characteristics of the study population

 

N or mean ± standard deviation

Percentage or range

Gender

  

   Male

138

80%

   Female

24

14%

   Unspecified

11

6%

Age at operation (years)

72.47 ± 7.62

(52 to 93)

   50 to 59 years

7

4%

   60 to 69 years

41

24%

   70 to 79 years

83

48%

   80 to 89 years

26

15%

   90 to 99 years

1

1%

   Unspecified

15

9%

Comorbidities

  

   Diabetes

5

3%

   Smoking

5

3%

   Hypertension

21

12%

   Hypercholesterolaemia

6

3%

   Cardiac status

25

14%

   Obesity

7

4%

   Stroke

5

3%

   Pulmonary status

21

12%

   Renal status

10

6%

   Other*

23

13%

   Peripheral vascular disease

7

4%

   Carotid disease

1

1%

Number of comorbidities

  

   0 or unspecified

114

66%

   1 or 2

26

15%

   ≥3

33

19%

AAA diameter

59.78 ± 11.04

42 to 95

Incomplete follow-up adherence

8

5%

   Time interval between EVAR and complication (months)

13.73 ± 16.11

0 to 85

   Perioperative, up to 24 hours

31

18%

   Initial, up to 30 days post-operative

28

16%

   Short term, 30 days to 6 months

15

9%

   Early mid-term, 6 months to 2 1/2 years

62

36%

   Late mid-term, 2 1/2 years to 5 years

23

13%

   Long term, > 5 years

4

2%

   Unspecified

10

6%

*Other comorbidities that were described in the case reports included: active hepatitis C, alcohol abuse, arteriocaval fistula, bilateral gunshot injury, chemoradiation, cholangitis, Crohn's disease, factor VII deficiency, degenerative joint disease of lumbar spine, hemicolectomy, 'hostile' abdomen, hyperthyreoidectomy, hypoplastic marrow, liver cirrhosis, lymphoma, multiple gastrointestinal and urogenital operations, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, pancreatoduodenectomy, pancytopenia, polycystic kidney disease, prostate cancer, rectal cancer, sigmoid resection and renal transplantation. †'Incomplete follow-up adherence' is defined by the patient missing one or more follow-up visits or refusing a re-intervention. AAA, abdominal aortic aneurysm; EVAR, endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair; SD, standard deviation.

The median time from device implantation to death, rupture or other complications was 8.5 months with a range of 0 to 85 months. Table 2 provides an overview of the reported complications in our study population. A fatal outcome was reported for 15% of all patients (N = 26). AAA rupture caused death in 50% of these patients (N = 13). Death was directly or indirectly related to EVAR in the other 50% (N = 13), which mostly occurred after complications of conversion to open AAA repair or aortoduodenal fistula.
Table 2

Complications after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Complication

N

Percentage

Device related

  

Endoleak

98

57%

   Type I

25

14%

   Type II

26

15%

   Type III

12

7%

   Type IV

0

0%

   Type V/endotension

5

3%

   Unspecified

30

17%

Kinking of stent graft

9

5%

Thrombosis of stent graft

19

11%

Graft migration

26

15%

Stent wire fracture

12

7%

Graft infection

5

3%

Technical deployment problems

13

8%

Non-device related

  

Multiple organ failure

8

5%

Cardiac

7

4%

Pulmonary

8

5%

Renal

8

5%

Fistula

11

6%

Ischaemic, embolic

25

14%

Other*

6

3%

Secondary intervention

144

83%

Open conversion

57

33%

AAA rupture

38

22%

Fatal course

26

15%

*Other complications that were described in the case reports included: heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, metal-induced pruriginous dermatitis, peri-aortitis with ureteral obstruction, upper gastric intestinal bleed, sloughing of scrotal skin and impotence. AAA, abdominal aortic aneurysm.

AAA rupture occurred in 22% of all patients (N = 38). The AAA rupture was fatal in 34% of these patients (N = 13) and non-fatal in 66% of these patients (N = 25). Interestingly, in 50% of the patients with an AAA rupture (N = 19), no prior endoleak was detected during regular postoperative follow-up. Other complications that were reported for patients in the total study population included endoleaks in 52%, graft thrombosis in 11% and graft infections in 3%. Technical device-related complications, including mal-deployment of the graft, graft migration, graft kinking and stent wire fracture, occurred in 35% of all patients (N = 61). Non-device-related complications occurred in 42% of all patients (N = 73).

One or more re-interventions were performed in 83% of all patients. The main indications for re-intervention included embolisation, conversion to open AAA repair, clipping of arteries, operative exploration, thrombectomy and thrombolysis. Table 3 shows the calculated RRs and 95% CIs of associations of clinically relevant factors with subsequent mortality and rupture after EVAR. The risk of mortality was higher for female patients than for male patients (RR 2.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 6.0). A patient missing one or more follow-up visits or refusing a re-intervention appeared to increase the risk of both rupture and mortality (RR 4.7, 95% CI 3.1 to 7.0; and RR 3.8, 95% CI 1.7 to 8.3, respectively). The presence of at least three comorbidities was also significantly associated with rupture and mortality (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.9; and RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.0 to 4.7, respectively). Larger AAA diameter and higher age appeared to be associated with increased AAA rupture risks, although none of the associations reached significance.
Table 3

Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals of associations of clinically relevant factors with subsequent mortality and rupture after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

  

Death or rupture

Rupture

Death

 

N total

N events

Risk

RR (95%CI)

N events

Risk

RR (95%CI)

N events

Risk

RR (95%CI)

Gender

          

   Male

138

36

0.26

-

29

0.21

-

16

0.12

-

   Female

24

11

0.46

1.8 (1.0;2.9)*

6

0.25

1.2 (0.6;2.6)

8

0.33

2.9 (1.4;6.0)*

   Unspecified

11

4

0.36

1.4 (0.6;3.2)

3

0.27

1.3 (0.5;3.6)

2

0.18

1.6 (0.4;6.0)

Age at operation

          

   50 to 59 years

7

2

0.29

-

1

0.14

-

2

0.29

-

   60 to 69 years

41

10

0.24

0.9 (0.2;3.0)

9

0.22

1.5 (0.2;10)

3

0.07

0.3 (0.1;1.3)

   70 to 79 years

83

24

0.29

1.0 (0.3;3.4)

15

0.18

1.3 (0.2;8.2)

12

0.14

0.5 (0.1;1.8)

   80 to 89 years

26

10

0.38

1.3 (0.4;4.8)

9

0.35

2.4 (0.4;16)

6

0.23

0.8 (0.2;3.2)

   90 to 99 years

1

1

1.00

3.5 (1.1;11)*

1

1.00

7.0 (1.1;43)*

1

1.00

3.5 (1.1;11)

   Unspecified

15

4

0.27

0.9 (0.2;3.9)

3

0.20

1.4 (0.2;11)

2

0.13

0.5 (0.1;2.7)

N comorbidities

          

   0 or unspecified

114

27

0.24

-

24

0.21

-

13

0.11

-

   1 or 2

26

8

0.31

1.3 (0.7;2.5)

3

0.12

0.5 (0.2;1.7)

5

0.19

1.7 (0.7;4.3)

   ≥3

33

16

0.48

2.0 (1.3;3.3)*

11

0.33

1.6 (0.9;2.9)

8

0.24

2.1 (1.0;4.7)*

AAA diameter

          

   40 to 49 mm

15

5

0.33

-

3

0.20

-

3

0.20

-

   50 to 59 mm

67

19

0.28

0.9 (0.4;1.9)

13

0.19

1.0 (0.3;3.0)

11

0.16

0.8 (0.3;2.6)

   60 to 69 mm

36

10

0.28

0.8 (0.3;2.0)

8

0.22

1.1 (0.3;3.6)

5

0.14

0.7 (0.2;2.5)

   70 to 79 mm

14

8

0.57

1.7 (0.7;4.0)

7

0.50

2.5 (0.8;7.8)

2

0.14

0.7 (0.1;3.7)

   > 80 mm

11

4

0.36

1.1 (0.4;3.1)

3

0.27

1.4 (0.3;5.5)

3

0.27

1.4 (0.3;5.5)

   Unspecified

30

5

0.17

0.5 (0.2;1.5)

4

0.13

0.7 (0.2;2.6)

2

0.07

0.3 (0.1;1.8)

AAA, abdominal aortic aneurysm; CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio. *P value less than 0.05.

Discussion

Female gender, comorbidities, missing one or more follow-up visits or refusal of a re-intervention by the patient appear to significantly increase the risk for mortality after EVAR. No prior endoleak was discovered during follow-up in 50% of the patients with an AAA rupture after EVAR. Larger aneurysm diameter, higher age and comorbidities may also increase the risk for AAA rupture after EVAR, although these associations could not be established significantly.

To the best of the authors' knowledge this is the first meta-analysis of case reports. Case reports do not provide strong causal evidence because they report only a small number of patients. Case reports can provide relevant information, notably on long-term complications in the realm of patients actually seen and treated in daily practice. Although they could be emphasising the bizarre [15], case reports are considered an important cornerstone for medical progress. This type of article can help to detect specific patterns of patient outcomes, particularly with regard to clinically important and rare adverse events and complications [16]. Case reports may therefore offer valuable information about the mechanisms of the development of complications.

The aim of our study was to review which patient, disease or procedural characteristics predict complications after EVAR. The selection of case reports about patients with complications after EVAR may have resulted in a cohort of patients who are at high risk for complications, irrespective of the device or the procedure. Therefore, one may question whether these extraordinary patients may have brought the complications to the device or procedure. Although patients who were included in this study may represent the odd and extraordinary cases, they clearly are patients who are seen in practice. For ethical considerations and reasons of efficiency, these odd and extraordinary cases are generally excluded from randomised trials and cohort studies. The risk factors derived from the presented cohort of case reports are similar to those reported in prognostic cohort studies. Hence, our results contribute to the robustness of the reported predictors.

Unfortunately, the documentation of clinical data was not performed according to a standardised protocol [17] in many case reports. As data in our study were limited to data that were presented in the selected case reports, a considerable amount of data was missing. The percentages of missing data in our study were 6.3% for gender, 8.7% for age, 5.8% for the time interval between EVAR and complication, and 17% for initial AAA diameters. Univariate analyses were performed to calculate associations between putative risk factors and subsequent clinical outcomes for different subgroups on the basis of the available data and also for the group of patients with missing and/or unspecified data. Comorbidities were described in 34% of all patients. From our point of view, this percentage can best be regarded as the minimum value of the number of patients with comorbidities, because under-reporting of comorbidities is likely in the other 66%. Missing data is a disadvantage which is inevitably linked with the unique approach, and should be regarded carefully when interpreting the results.

Several studies have compared mortality and morbidity risks in men and women after EVAR. Two national database studies in the US have shown that mortality after EVAR is significantly 2.0 to 2.5 times higher in women than in men [18, 19]. The EUROSTAR study indicated that female gender was a significant risk factor for endoleak [20]. In addition to significantly reduced sizes of iliacal arteries, women are more likely to have a shorter, more dilated and more angulated proximal aortic neck, which may lead to proximal endoleak and graft migration [21]. Female patients also have a higher risk of abortion of the initial EVAR procedure and mal-deployment of the endograft [22]. Wolf et al. showed that women had significantly more intra-operative complications compared with men. They hypothesised that this was related to differences in arterial access [23]. Nordness et al. showed that women were more likely to have significant arterial dissections during EVAR. One-month mortality risks were 12% in female and 0% in male patients (P = 0.02). One-month complication risks were 41% in women and 15% in men (P = 0.02) [24]. Ouriel et al. found no differences between men and women in perioperative and mid-term mortality. However, they demonstrated a higher risk for graft-limb occlusions in women than in men [25].

The impact of comorbidities on the risk of mortality after EVAR has been described by several authors. Azizzadeh et al. showed that patients with a low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) faired significantly worse than patients with a better GFR [26]. Biancari et al. showed that survival was significantly different among tertiles of the Glasgow Aneurysm Score, which is a tool for measuring the fitness of the patient for surgery (P < 0.001). Patients with a high score and extensive comorbidities had a significantly lower 5-year survival rate than the other patients [27]. Chaikof et al. categorised patients into a high-risk group (N = 123) and a low-risk group (N = 113) according to the clinical condition of the patient. The 2-year survival was 73.5% for high-risk patients and 85.8% for low-risk patients (P = 0.035 [28]. Riambau et al. showed that patients with a poor medical condition had a significantly lower 1-year survival after EVAR compared with relatively fit patients: 83% versus 93% (P < 0.001). Diabetes mellitus appears to influence mortality considerably [29]. Zannetti et al. divided patients in subgroups according to the American Society for Anesthesiology (ASA) classification. Cumulative survival was 89% in the ASA < IV and 76% in the ASA IV group (P = 0.004) after 3 years of follow-up [30]. These reports, in combination with our results, underscore the impact of comorbidities on mortality and morbidity after EVAR.

Missing one or more follow-up visit appeared to increase the risk of complications in our study. As far as we know, this has never been described before. The EUROSTAR study showed counter-intuitively that the risk of complications was significantly higher in patients with a perfect follow-up adherence. Compliance with follow-up screening in their study appeared to be biased, however, because high-risk patients, including smokers, patients with hyperlipidaemia, and patients who were unfit for open surgery or general anaesthesia had the best follow-up adherence [10]. Therefore, extensive follow-up screening and re-interventions are still required after EVAR.

Conclusion

Although a meta-analysis of case reports has some clear methodological drawbacks, it offers unique opportunities. The risk factors for complications after endovascular AAA repair that are presented in this document are similar to those that are presented in prognostic cohort studies. Female gender and the presence of comorbidities appear to increase the risk of mortality after EVAR. Larger AAA diameter, higher age and multimorbidity at the time of surgery increase the risk for rupture and other complications following EVAR. These risk factors deserve attention in future well-designed follow-up studies.

Abbreviations

AAA: 

abdominal aortic aneurysm

ASA: 

American Society for Anesthesiology

CI: 

confidence interval

EVAR: 

endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

GFR: 

glomerular filtration rate

RR: 

risk ratio

SD: 

standard deviation.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

No funding or other financial or material support was used for this study. There were no sponsors involved with the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht
(2)
Department of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht
(3)
Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center

References

  1. Prinssen M, Verhoeven ELG, Buth J, Cuypers PW, van Sambeek MR, Balm R, Buskens E, Grobbee DE, Blankensteijn JD, Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) Trial Group: A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2004, 351: 1607-1618. 10.1056/NEJMoa042002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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: 843-848. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16979-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. EVAR trial participants: Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005, 365: 2179-2186. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66627-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Blankensteijn JD, de Jong SE, Prinssen M, Ham van der AC, Buth J, van Sterkenburg SM, Verhagen HJ, Buskens E, Grobbee DE, Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) Trial Group: Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2005, 352: 2398-2405. 10.1056/NEJMoa051255.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter JP, Baum RA, Barker CF, Golden MA, Velazquez OC, Mitchell ME, Fairman RM: Durability of benefits of endovascular versus conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2002, 35: 222-228. 10.1067/mva.2002.120034.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Peppelenbosch N, Buth J, Harris PL, van Marrewijk C, Fransen G, EUROSTAR Collaborators: Diameter of abdominal aortic aneurysm and outcome of endovascular aneurysm repair: does size matter? A report from EUROSTAR. J Vasc Surg. 2004, 39: 288-297. 10.1016/j.jvs.2003.09.047.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Laheij RJ, Buth J, Harris PL, Moll FL, Stelter WJ, Verhoeven EL: Need for secondary interventions after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: intermediate-term follow-up results of a European collaborative registry (EUROSTAR). Br J Surg. 2000, 87: 1666-1673. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01661.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Vallabhaneni SR, Harris PL: Lessons learnt from the EUROSTAR registry on endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Radiol. 2001, 39: 34-41. 10.1016/S0720-048X(01)00340-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Beard JD, Thomas SM: Mid-term results of the RETA registry. Br J Surg. 2002, 89: 520-520.Google Scholar
  10. Leurs J, Laheij RJF, Buth J, on behalf of the EUROSTAR Collaborators: What determines and are the consequences of surveillance intensity after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair?. Ann Vasc Surg. 2005, 19: 868-875. 10.1007/s10016-005-7751-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Beebe HG, Cronenwett JL, Katzen BT, Brewster DC, Green RM, Vanguard Endograft Trial Investigators: Results of an aortic endograft trial: impact of device failure beyond 12 months. J Vasc Surg. 2001, 33: S55-S63. 10.1067/mva.2001.111663.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ohki T, Veith FJ, Shaw P, Lipsitz E, Suggs WD, Wain RA, Bade M, Mehta M, Cayne N, Cynamon J, Valldares J, McKay J: Increasing incidence of midterm and long-term complications after endovascular graft repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a note of caution based on a 9-year experience. Ann Surg. 2001, 234: 323-335. 10.1097/00000658-200109000-00006.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Bush RL, Lumsden AB, Dodson TF, Salam AA, Weiss VJ, Smith RB, Chaikof EL: Mid-term results after endovascular repair of the abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2001, 33: S70-S76. 10.1067/mva.2001.111740.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Rothman K, Andersson T, Ahlbom A: Meta-analysis. Episheet: Spreadsheets for the Analysis of Epidemiologic Data. 2004, http://members.aol.com/krothman/episheet.xls Google Scholar
  15. Iles RL: Case reports. Guidebook to Better Medical Writing. 1997, Olathe, KA: Island PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Vandenbroucke JP: In defense of case reports and case series. Ann Intern Med. 2001, 134: 330-334.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Herings RM, Stricker BH, Leufkens HG, Bakker A, Sturmans F, Urquhart J: Public health problems and the rapid estimation of the size of the population at risk. Torsades de pointes and the use of terfenadine and astemizole in The Netherlands. Pharm World Sci. 1993, 15: 212-218. 10.1007/BF01880629.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillavou ED, Muluk SC, Makaroun MS: A decade of change in abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the United States: have we improved outcomes equally between men and women?. J Vasc Surg. 2006, 43: 230-238. 10.1016/j.jvs.2005.09.043.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. McPhee JT, Hill JS, Eslami MH: The impact of gender on presentation, therapy, and mortality of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the United States, 2001–2004. J Vasc Surg. 2007, 45: 891-899. 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.01.043.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Buth J, Laheij RJF, on behalf of the EUROSTAR Collaborators: Early complications and endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: report of a multicenter study. J Vasc Surg. 2000, 31: 134-146. 10.1016/S0741-5214(00)70075-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Velazquez CO, Larson RA, Baum RA, Carpenter JP, Golden MA, Mitchell ME, Pyeron A, Barker CF, Fairman RM: Gender-related differences in infrarenal aortic aneurysm morphologic features: issues relevant to Ancure and Talent endografts. J Vasc Surg. 2001, 33: S77-84. 10.1067/mva.2001.111921.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mathison M, Becker GJ, Katzen BT, Benenati JF, Zemel G, Powell A, Kovacs ME, Lima MM: The influence of female gender on the outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001, 12: 1047-1051. 10.1016/S1051-0443(07)61589-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolf YG, Arko FR, Hill BB, Olcott C, Harris EJ, Fogarty TJ, Zarins CK: Gender differences in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with the AneuRx stent graft. J Vasc Surg. 2002, 35: 882-886. 10.1067/mva.2002.123754.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nordness PJ, Carter G, Tonnessen B, Charles Sternbergh W, Money SR: The effect of gender on early and intermediate results of endovascular aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2003, 17: 615-621. 10.1007/s10016-003-0072-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ouriel K, Greenberg RK, Clair DG, O'hara PJ, Srivastava SD, Lyden SP, Sarac TP, Sampram E, Butler B: Endovascular aneurysm repair: gender-specific results. J Vasc Surg. 2003, 38: 93-98. 10.1016/S0741-5214(03)00127-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Azizzadeh A, Sanchez LA, Miller CC, Marine L, Rubin BG, Safi HJ, Huynh TT, Parodi JC, Sicard GA: Glomerular filtration rate is a predictor of mortality after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2006, 43: 14-18. 10.1016/j.jvs.2005.08.037.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Biancari F, Hobo R, Juvonen T: Glasgow Aneurysm Score predicts survival after endovascular stenting of abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients from the EUROSTAR registry. Br J Surg. 2006, 93: 191-194. 10.1002/bjs.5262.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Chaikof EL, Lin PH, Brinkman WT, Dodson TF, Weiss VJ, Lumsden AB, Terramani TT, Najibi S, Bush RL, Salam AA, Smith RB: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: risk stratified outcomes. Ann Surg. 2002, 235: 833-841. 10.1097/00000658-200206000-00011.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Riambau V, Laheij RJ, Garcia-Madrid C, Sánchez-Espin G, EUROSTAR group: The association between co-morbidity and mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm endografting in patients ineligible for elective open surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2001, 22: 265-270. 10.1053/ejvs.2001.1443.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Zannetti S, De Rango P, Palani G, Verzini F, Maselli A, Cao P: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in high-risk patients: a single centre experience. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2001, 21: 334-338. 10.1053/ejvs.2001.1345.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Schlösser et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.