Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Methods for Determining the Long Term Behavior of Endovascular Devices

  • Published:
Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Endovascular aneurysm repair is developing as the standard of care in treating abdominal aortic aneurysms. Long term complications and late rupture risks remain a primary concern of this new therapeutic approach, mandating life time surveillance. Post endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) follow up and management of reintervention utilizes a number of techniques (CT, MRI, and Ultrasound), with a consequent need to improve follow up assessments in terms of cost, patient safety and time efficacy. Reduced expenditure on surveillance represents one possible means of improving cost efficacy of EVAR. The concept of implanting a sensor to measure pressure has been formulated and a number of groups have been developing implantable sensors to measure pressure in order to address some of these long term follow-up issues. Positive short-term results in the use of sensors which deliver in vivo measurements have indicated the potential of sensors becoming a useful, real-time tool for EVAR long-term surveillance. This paper reviews several of the continuing issues in the current experience of EVAR, examines results from various clinical trials and discusses methods of identifying stent grafts at high risk of reintervention by using pressure sensors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abbruzzese, T. A., C. J. Kwolek, D. C. Brewster, et al. Outcomes following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR): an anatomic and device-specific analysis. J. Vasc. Surg. 48:19–28, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ailawadi, G., J. L. Eliason, and G. R. Upchurch, Jr. Current concepts in the pathogenesis of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Vasc. Surg. 38:584, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Albuquerque, F. C., B. H. Tonnessen, R. E. Nol, et al. Paradigm shifts in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm: trends in 721 patients between 1996 and 2008. J. Vasc. Surg. 51:1348–1353, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arvanitis, D. P., S. E. Georgopoulos, K. I. Dervisis, et al. Late non-anastomotic false aneurysm formation in femoropopliteal polyethylene terephthalate grafts. Int. Angiol. 20:348–350, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Badger, S. A., N. Arya, and W. Loan. Evaluation of angiography as the sole imaging study for the proximal aortic neck prior to EVAR. Ulster Med. J. 78:166–170, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beebe, H. G., J. L. Cronenwett, B. T. Katzen, et al. Results of an aortic endograft trial: impact of device failure beyond 12 months. J. Vasc. Surg. 33:55–63, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bendick, P. J., G. B. Zelenock, P. G. Bove, et al. Duplex ultrasound imaging with an ultrasound contrast agent: the economic alternative to CT angiography for aortic stent graft surveillance. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 37:165–170, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Blanchard, J. F., H. K. Armenian, and P. P. Friesen. Risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm: results of a case-control study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 151:575–583, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brady, A. R., S. G. Thompson, F. G. Fowkes, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion. Circulation 110:16–21, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Breeuwer, M., S. Putter, U. de Kose, and L. Speelman. Towards patient-specific risk assessment of abdominal aortic. Med. Biol. Eng. Comp. 46:1085–1095, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brenner, D. J., and E. J. Hall. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N. Engl. J. Med. 357:277–284, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cao, P., F. Verzini, S. Zannetti, et al. Device migration after endoluminal abdominal. J. Vasc. Surg. 35:229–235, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. CardioMEMS, Inc. EndoSure® Wireless AAA Pressure Measurement System, 2011 http://www.cardiomems.com/content.asp?display=medical+mb&expand=ess. Last accessed March 2012.

  14. Chaer, R. A., S. Trocciola, B. DeRubertis, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of a wireless pressure sensor in a canine model of retrograde-collateral (type II) endoleak and correlation with histologic analysis. J. Vasc. Surg. 44:1306–1313, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cho, J. S., E. D. Dillavou, R. Y. Rhee, et al. Late abdominal aortic aneurysm enlargement after endovascular repair with the excluder device. J. Vasc. Surg. 39:1236–1241, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chow, E. Y., A. L. Chlebowski, S. Chakraborty, et al. Fully wireless implantable cardiovascular pressure monitor integrated with a medical stent. Biomed. Eng. IEEE Trans. 57:1487–1496, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Conners, III, M. S., W. C. Sternbergh, W. C. Sternbergh, and G. Carter. Endograft migration one to four years after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with the AneuRx device: a cautionary note. J. Vasc. Surg. 36:476–484, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Corbett, T. J., A. Callanan, L. G. Morris, et al. A review of the in vivo and in vitro biomechanical behavior and performance of postoperative abdominal aortic aneurysms and implanted stent-grafts. J. Endovasc. Ther. 15:468–484, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Criado, F. J., N. S. Clark, C. McKendrick, et al. Update on the talent LPS AAA stent graft: results with ‘Enhanced Talent’. Semin. Vasc. Surg. 16:158–165, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Criado, F. J., R. M. Fairman, G. J. Becker, et al. Talent LPS AAA stent graft: results of a pivotal clinical trial. J. Vasc. Surg. 37:709–715, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Criado, F. J., E. P. Wilson, R. M. Fairman, et al. Update on the talent aortic stent-graft: a preliminary report from United States phase I and II trials. J. Vasc. Surg. 33:146–149, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Demanget, N., S. Avril, P. Badel, et al. Computational comparison of the bending behavior of aortic stent-grafts. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 5:272–282, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dias, N. V., K. Ivancev, M. Malina, et al. Intra-aneurysm sac pressure measurements after endovascular aneurysm repair: differences between shrinking, unchanged, and expanding aneurysms with and without endoleaks. J. Vasc. Surg. 39:1229–1235, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dillavou, E. D., S. C. Muluk, and M. S. Makaroun. Improving aneurysm-related outcomes: nationwide benefits of endovascular repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 43:446–452, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Director, Office of Device Evaluation. CardioMEMS Endosure System, 2005. www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf5/K050939.pdf. Last accessed May 2013.

  26. Durham, C., M. McNally, C. I. Jones, et al. The Impact of CardioMEMS EndoSure on longitudinal axial imaging studies. J. Vasc. Surg. 51:36S, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ebaugh, J. L., M. K. Eskandari, A. Finkelstein, et al. Caudal migration of endoprostheses after treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Surg. Res. 107:14–17, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ellozy, S. H., A. Carroccio, R. A. Lookstein, et al. First experience in human beings with a permanently implantable intrasac pressure transducer for monitoring endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 40:405–412, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ellozy, S. H., A. Carroccio, R. A. Lookstein, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm sac shrinkage after endovascular aneurysm repair: correlation with chronic sac pressure measurement. J. Vasc. Surg. 43:2–7, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Engellau, L., E. M. Larsson, and U. Albrechtsson. Manetic resonance imaging and MR angiography of endoluminally treated abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 15:212–219, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. FDA. MAUDE—Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience, 2013. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/Results.cfm?RequestTimeout=500. Last accessed May 2013.

  32. Fulton, J. J., M. A. Farber, L. A. Sanchez, et al. Effect of challenging neck anatomy on mid-term migration rates in AneuRx endografts. J. Vasc. Surg. 44:932–937, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gandhi, R. T., B. T. Katzen, A. I. Tsoukas, et al. Aortic aneurysm pressure sensors can be of value in the acute postoperative setting. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 45:412–417, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gawenda, M., G. Jaschke, S. T. Winter, et al. Endotension as a result of pressure transmission through the graft following endovascular aneurysm repair—an in vitro study. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 26:501–505, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Golledge, J., J. Muller, A. Daugherty, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm pathogenesis and implications for management. Arterioscl. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 26:2605–2613, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Golzarian, J., L. Dussaussois, and J. Struyven. Imaging of abdominal aortic aneurysms after endoluminal repair. Semin. Ultrasound CT MRI 20:16–24, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gray, C., P. Goodman, C. C. Herron, et al. Use of colour duplex ultrasound as a first line surveillance tool following EVAR is associated with a reduction in cost without compromising accuracy. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 44:145–150, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Greenhalgh, R. M. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 364:843–848, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Harrison, G. J., O. A. Oshin, S. R. Vallabhaneni, et al. Surveillance after EVAR based on duplex ultrasound and abdominal radiography. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 42:187–192, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hartnell, G. G. Imaging of aortic aneurysms and dissection: CT and MRI. J. Thorac. Imaging 16:35–46, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hellinger, J. C. Endovascular repair of thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms: pre- and postprocedural imaging. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 8:2–15, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hinchliffe, R. J., and K. Ivancev. Endovascular aneurysm repair: current and future status. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 31:451–459, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hogg, M. E., M. D. Morasch, t Park, et al. Long-term sac behavior after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with the excluder low-permeability endoprosthesis. J. Vasc. Surg. 53:1178–1183, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hoppe, H., J. A. Segall, T. K. Liem, et al. Aortic aneurysm sac pressure measurements after endovascular repair using an implantable remote sensor: initial experience and short-term follow-up. Europ. Radiology 18:957–965, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Irace, L., R. Stumpo, P. Costa, et al. Rupture of dacron aorto-femoral graft. Case report. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 40:879–881, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Jacobs, T. S., J. Won, C. E. Gravereaux, et al. Mechanical failure of prosthetic human implants: a 10-year experience with aortic stent graft devices. J. Vasc. Surg. 37:16–26, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Jim, J. Commentary: endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms with severe neck angulation. J. Endovasc. Ther. 19:525–527, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Jones, G. T., M. J. Bown, S. Gretarsdottir, et al. A sequence variant associated with sortilin-1 (SORT1) on 1p13. 3 is independently associated with abdominal aortic aneurysm. Hum. Mol. Genet. 22:2945–2947, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kent, K. C., R. M. Zwolak, N. N. Egorova, et al. Analysis of risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm in a cohort of more than 3 million individuals. J. Vasc. Surg. 52:539–548, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Krogh-Sørensen, K., M. Brekke, A. Drolsum, et al. Periprosthetic leak and rupture after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: the significance of device design for long-term results. J. Vasc. Surg. 29:1152–1158, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kuivaniemi, H., C. D. Platsoucas, and M. D. Tilson, III. Aortic aneurysms an immune disease with a strong genetic component. Circulation 117:242–252, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kuivaniemi, H., H. Shibamura, C. Arthur, et al. Familial abdominal aortic aneurysms: collection of 233 multiplex families. J. Vasc. Surg. 37:340–345, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kvinlaug, K. E., D. K. Lawlor, T. L. Forbes, et al. Early results from a Canadian multicenter prospective registry of the endurant stent graft for endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Endovasc. Ther. 19:58–66, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Larsson, E., F. Granath, J. Swedenborg, and R. Hultgren. A population-based case-control study of the familial risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Vasc. Surg. 49:47–51, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lederle, F. A., G. R. Johnson, S. E. Wilson, et al. Prevalence and associations of abdominal aortic aneurysm detected through screening. Ann. Intern. Med. 126:441–449, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lee, J. T., J. Lee, I. Aziz, et al. Stent-graft migration following endovascular repair of aneurysms with large proximal necks: anatomical risk factors and long-term sequelae. J. Endovasc. Ther. 9:652–664, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Macari, M., G. M. Israel, P. Berman, et al. Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms at multi-detector row CT angiography: intravascular enhancement without a timing acquisition. Radiology 220:519–523, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Makarounn, M. S., M. Tuchek, D. Massop, et al. One year outcomes of the United States regulatory trial of the endurant stent graft system. J. Vasc. Surg. 54:601–608, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Malina, M., J. Brunkwall, K. Ivancev, et al. Endovascular healing is inadequate for fixation of dacron stent-grafts in human aortoiliac vessels. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 19:5–11, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Manning, B. J., S. M. O’Neill, S. N. Haider, et al. Duplex ultrasound in aneurysm surveillance following endovascular aneurysm repair: a comparison with computed tomography aortography. J. Vasc. Surg. 49:60–65, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. McPhee, J. T., J. S. Hill, and M. H. Eslami. The impact of gender on presentation, therapy, and mortality of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the United States, 2001–2004. J. Vasc. Surg. 45:891–899, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Mehta, M., F. E. Valdes, T. Nolte, et al. One-year outcomes from an international study of the ovation abdominal stent graft system for endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.06.065.

  63. Milner, R., K. Kasirajan, E. L. Chaikof, et al. Future of endograft surveillance. Semin. Vasc. Surg. 19:75–82, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Moll, F., J. Powell, G. Fraedrich, et al. Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European society for vascular surgery. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 41:1, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Najjar, S. F., J. S. Cho, R. Y. Rhee, et al. Sac behavior after aneurysm treatment with the gore excluder low-permeability aortic endoprosthesis: 12-month comparison to the original excluder device. J. Vasc. Surg. 44:694–700, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Noll, R. E., B. H. Tonnessen, K. Mannava, et al. Long-term postplacement costs after endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 46:9–15, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Nowygrod, R., N. Egorova, G. Greco, et al. Trends, complications, and mortality in peripheral vascular surgery. J. Vasc. Surg. 43:205–216, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ohki, T., K. Ouriel, P. Silveira, et al. Initial results of wireless pressure sensing for endovascular aneurysm repair: the APEX trial—acute pressure measurement to confirm aneurysm sac exclusion. J. Vasc. Surg. 45:236–242, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Oikonomou, K., F. C. Ventin, K. I. Paraskevas, et al. Early follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair: is the first postoperative computed tomographic angiography scan necessary? J. Endovasc. Ther. 19:151–156, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Peterson, B. G., J. S. Matsumura, D. C. Brewster, et al. Five-year report of a multi center controlled clinical trial of open versus endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 45:885–890, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Prinssen, M., C. L. Wixon, E. Buskens, et al. Surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair: diagnostics, complications, and associated costs. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 18:421–427, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Raghavan, M. L., J. A. Kratzberg, J. Golzarian, et al. Introduction to biomechanics related to endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Tech. Vasc. Intervent. Radiol. 8:50–55, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Raman, K. G., N. Missig-Carroll, T. Richardson, et al. Color-flow duplex ultrasound scan versus computed tomographic scan in the surveillance of endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2003(38):645–651, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sakalihasan, N., R. Limet, and O. D. Defawe. Abdominal aortic aneurysm. Lancet 365:1577–1589, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sampaio, S. M., J. M. Panneton, G. Mozes, et al. AneuRx device migration: incidence, risk factors, and consequences. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 19:178–185, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Schanzer, A., R. K. Greenberg, N. Hevelone, et al. Predictors of abdominal aortic aneurysm sac enlargement after endovascular repair clinical perspective. Circulation 123:2848–2855, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Schermerhorn, M. L., J. O’Malley, A. Jhaveri, et al. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the medicare population. N. Engl. J. Med. 358:464–474, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Schlierf, R., M. Gortz, R. Schmitz, et al. Pressure sensor capsule to control the treatment of abdominal aorta aneurisms. IEEE 2:1656–1659, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Schlösser, F., R. Gusberg, A. Dardik, et al. Aneurysm rupture after EVAR: can the ultimate failure be predicted? Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 37:15–22, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Schwartze, M. L., Y. Shen, J. Hemmerich, et al. Age-related trends in utilization and outcome of open and endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in the United States, 2001–2006. J. Vasc. Surg. 50:722–729, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Sepulveda, A. T., A. J. Pontes, and J. C. Viana. Flexible sensor for blood pressure measurement. Eng in Med and Biol Society, EMBC, 2011 In. Annual International Conference of the IEEE 20:215, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Sharma, P., and C. Kyriakides. Surveillance of patients post-endovascular aneurysm repair. Postgrad. Med. J. 83:750–753, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Shrikhande, G., S. Khan, H. Hussain, A. Menezes, J. McKinsey, and H. Bush. Significance of initial aortic aneurysm pressure sensor readings varies with aortic endograft design. World J. Surg. 34:2969–2972, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Shrikhande, G., S. Khan, H. Hussain, et al. Significance of initial aortic aneurysm pressure sensor readings. World J. Surg. 34:2969–2972, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Silveira, P. G., C. W. Miller, R. F. Mendes, et al. Correlation between intrasac pressure measurements of a pressure sensor and an angiographic catheter during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. CLINICS 63:59–66, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Singh, K., K. Bønaa, B. Jacobsen, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysms in a population-based study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 154:236–244, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Springer, F., R. W. Gunther, T. Schmitz-Rode, et al. Aneurysm sac pressure measurement with minimally invasive implantable pressure sensors: an alternative to current surveillance regimes after EVAR? Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 31:460–467, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Tan, E. L., K. G. Ong. Magneto-harmonic pressure sensor for biomedical applications. IEEE. 2011. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091354.

  89. Tonnessen, B. H., W. C. Sternbergh, S. R. Money, et al. Mid- and long-term device migration after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A comparison of AneuRx and Zenith endografts. J. Vasc. Surg. 42:392–401, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Tromp, G., H. Kuivaniemi, I. Hinterseher, et al. Novel genetic mechanisms for aortic aneurysms. Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 12:259–266, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Turnbull, I. C., F. J. Criado, L. Sanchez, et al. Five-year results for the talent enhanced low profile system abdominal stentgraft pivotal trial including early and long-term safety and efficacy. J. Vasc. Surg. 51:537–544, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Van Marrewijk, C. J., L. J. Leurs, S. R. Vallabhaneni, et al. Risk-adjusted outcome analysis of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in a large population: how do stent-grafts compare? J. Endovasc. Ther. 12:417–429, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Vardulaki, K., N. Walker, N. Day, et al. Quantifying the risks of hypertension, age, sex and smoking in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br. J. Surg. 87:195–200, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Waasdorpa, E. J., J. P. P. M. de Vries, A. Sterkenburg, et al. The association between iliac fixation and proximal stent-graft migration during EVAR follow-up: mid-term results of 154 talent devices. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 37:681–687, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. White, R. A., C. Donayre, and G. Kopchok. Intravascular ultrasound: the ultimate tool for abdominal aortic aneurysm assessment and endovascular graft delivery. J. Endovasc. Study 4:45–55, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. White, R. A., C. E. Donayre, I. Walot, et al. Modular bifurcation endoprosthesis for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann. Surg. 226:381–391, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Wilmink, T., C. R. G. Quick, and N. E. Day. The association between cigarette smoking and abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 30:1099–1105, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wilmink, T., C. R. G. Quick, C. S. Hubbard, et al. The influence of screening on the incidence of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 30:203–208, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wilson, S. E., R. Krug, G. Muller, et al. Late disruption of dacron aortic grafts. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 11:383–386, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Zarins, C. K., D. A. Bloch, T. Crabtree, et al. Stent graft migration after endovascular aneurysm repair: importance of proximal fixation. J. Vasc. Surg. 38:1264–1272, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Zarins, C. K., and E. J. Harris, Jr. Operative repair for aortic aneurysms: the gold standard. J. Inf. 4:232–241, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Zarins, C. K., R. A. White, D. Schwarten, et al. AneuRx stent graft versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: multicenter prospective clinical trial. J. Vasc. Surg. 29:292–308, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank our Funding Source—HEA PRTLI‐5 under the Biomedical Engineering and Regenerative Medicine (BMERM) programme.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest

Ethical standards

No human studies were carried out by the authors for this article. No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Applied Biomedical Engineering Research (CABER), Department of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Biomedical Engineering, The Material and Surface Science Institute (MSSI), University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Brónadh Lynch & Timothy M. McGloughlin

  2. Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    John Nelson

  3. University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Eamon G. Kavanagh & Stewart R. Walsh

Authors
  1. Brónadh Lynch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eamon G. Kavanagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stewart R. Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Timothy M. McGloughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy M. McGloughlin.

Additional information

Associate Editor Ajit P. Yoganathan oversaw the review of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lynch, B., Nelson, J., Kavanagh, E.G. et al. A Review of Methods for Determining the Long Term Behavior of Endovascular Devices. Cardiovasc Eng Tech 5, 1–12 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-013-0168-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-013-0168-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation