Your browser has javascript turned off or blocked. This will lead to some parts of our website to not work properly or at all. Turn on javascript for best performance.

The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here:

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

ludc webb

Nuno Dias

Associate professor

ludc webb

Is There a Benefit of Frequent CT Follow-up After EVAR?


  • Nuno Dias
  • L Riva
  • Krassi Ivancev
  • Tim Resch
  • Björn Sonesson
  • Martin Malina

Summary, in English

OBJECTIVE: Imaging follow-up (FU) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is usually performed by periodic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of CT-FU after EVAR. METHODS: In this study, 279 of 304 consecutive patients (261 male, aged 74 years (interquartile range (IQR): 70-79 years) with a median abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter of 58mm (IQR: 53-67mm)) underwent at least one of the yearly CT scans and plain abdominal films after EVAR. All patients received Zenith stent-grafts for non-ruptured AAAs at a single institution. Patients were considered asymptomatic when a re-intervention was done solely due to an imaging FU finding. The data were prospectively entered in a computer database and retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: As a follow-up, 1167 CT scans were performed at a median of 54 months (IQR: 34-74 months) after EVAR. Twenty-seven patients exhibited postoperative AAA expansion (a 5-year expansion-free rate of 88+/-2%), and 57 patients underwent 78 postoperative re-interventions with a 5-year secondary success rate of 91+/-2%. Of the 279 patients, 26 (9.3%) undergoing imaging FU benefitted from the yearly CT scans, since they had re-interventions based on asymptomatic imaging findings: AAA diameter expansion with or without endoleaks (n=18), kink in the stent-graft limbs (n=4), endoleak type III due to stent-graft limb separation without simultaneous AAA expansion (n=2), isolated common iliac artery expansion (n=1) and superior mesenteric artery malperfusion due to partial coverage by the stent-graft fabric (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: Less than 10% of the patients benefit from the yearly CT-FU after EVAR. Only one re-intervention due to partial coverage of a branch by the stent-graft would have been delayed if routine FU had been based on simple diameter measurements and plain abdominal radiograph. This suggests that less-frequent CT is sufficient in the majority of patients, which may simplify the FU protocol, reduce radiation exposure and the total costs of EVAR. Contrast-enhanced CT scans continue, nevertheless, to be critical when re-interventions are planned.


  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö
  • Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö

Publishing year







European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery


Feb 20

Document type

Journal article




  • Surgery



Research group

  • Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö


  • ISSN: 1532-2165