Objective: Management of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) varies significantly between centers and is not standardized according to sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution. Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching a grade A (full agreement ≥75%) or B (overall agreement ≥80% and full disagreement <5%) were included in the final document. Results: One-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Of 27 final statements, 15 (55.6%) were classified as grade I, whereas 12 (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR. Conclusions: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide the current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues.

Tinelli, G., D'Oria, M., Sica, S., Mani, K., Rancic, Z., Resch, T. A., Beccia, F., Azizzadeh, A., Da Volta Ferreira, M. M., Gargiulo, M., Lepidi, S., Tshomba, Y., Oderich, G. S., Haulon, S., Beck, A. W., Hertault, A., Savlania, A., Froio, A., Giaquinta, A., Zimmermann, T. A., Psyllas, A., Wanhainen, A., Marchetti, A. A., Queiroz, A. B., Kahlberg, A., Reyes-Valdivia, A., Schanzer, A., Tambyraja, A., Freyrie, A., Lorido, A., Millon, A., Ippoliti, A., Abai, B., Mees, B., Reutersberg, B., Maurel, B., Michel, B., Wahlgren, C. M., Cavazzini, C., Setacci, C., Lee, C. J., Ferrer, C., Bicknell, C., Raphael, C., Clair, D., Dawson, D. L., Arnaoutakis, D. J., Bockler, D., Kotelis, D., Mujagic, E., Chisci, E., Cieri, E., Gallitto, E., Marone, E. M., Ducasse, E., Verzini, F., Pecoraro, F., Serracino-Inglott, F., Benedetto, F., Speziale, F., Stilo, F., Alvarez-Marcos, F., Pagliariccio, G., Piffaretti, G., Lanza, G., Philipp, G., Geenberg, G., Jung, G., Melissano, G., Veraldi, G. F., Parlani, G., Faggioli, G., De Donato, G., Simonte, G., Colacchio, G., De Caridi, G., Pratesi, G., Spinella, G., Torsello, G., Leong Tan, G. W., Magee, G. A., Verhagen, H., Andrew, H., Koleilat, I., Ohman, J. W., De Vries, J. P. P. M., Budtz-Lilly, J., Black, J., Eldrup-Jorgensen, J., Hockley, J., Bath, J., Sobocinski, J., Van Herwaarden, J. A., Reinhard, K., Orion, K. C., Amankwah, K., Bertoglio, L., Di Marzo, L., Garriboli, L., Rizzo, L., Hakimi, M., Sheahan, M., Khashram, M., Schermerhorn, M., Lescan, M., Conrad, M., Davies, M. G., Czerny, M., Orrico, M., Eagleton, M. J., Smeds, M. R., Taurino, M., Wohlauer, M., Sharafuddin, M. J., Anna-Leonie, M., Reijnen, M., Antonello, M., Piazza, M. G., Settembre, N., Mouawad, N. J., Tsilimparis, N., Dias, N., Martinelli, O., Frigatti, P., Sirignano, P., Chong, P., Bevis, P., Dimuzio, P., Henke, P., Duppers, P., Holt, P., Helmio, P., Vriens, P., Pulli, R., Bellosta, R., Micheli, R., Veeraswamy, R., Cuff, R., Chiappa, R., Gattuso, R., Pini, R., Dalman, R. L., Milner, R., Scali, S. T., Bahia, S., Laukontaus, S., Trimarchi, S., Fernandez-Alonso, S., Deglise, S., Bellmunt-Montoya, S., Hofer, S., Yusuf, S. W., Ronchey, S., Bartoli, S., Bonvini, S., Camparini, S., Fazzini, S., Pirrelli, S., Horer, T., Bisdas, T., Vasudevan, T., Lattmann, T., Wyss, T. R., Maldonado, T., Pfammatter, T., Kolbel, T., Jakimowicz, T., Donati, T., Tracci, M., Bracale, U. M., Tolva, V. S., Riambau, V., Palazzo, V., Makaloski, V., Von Allmen, R. S., Dorigo, W., Mansour, W., Van Den Eynde, W., The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair: An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study, <<JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY>>, 2024; (Marzo): N/A-N/A. [doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2024.03.007] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/281459]

The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair: An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study

Tinelli, Giovanni
Primo
;
D'Oria, Marika;Sica, Simona;Beccia, Flavia;Tshomba, Yamume;Zimmermann, Thomas Alexander;Cavazzini, Carlo;Stilo, Francesco;Piazza, Marco Graziano;Hofer, Stefan;Donati, Tommaso;
2024

Abstract

Objective: Management of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) varies significantly between centers and is not standardized according to sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution. Methods: Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching a grade A (full agreement ≥75%) or B (overall agreement ≥80% and full disagreement <5%) were included in the final document. Results: One-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Of 27 final statements, 15 (55.6%) were classified as grade I, whereas 12 (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR. Conclusions: Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide the current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues.
2024
Inglese
Tinelli, G., D'Oria, M., Sica, S., Mani, K., Rancic, Z., Resch, T. A., Beccia, F., Azizzadeh, A., Da Volta Ferreira, M. M., Gargiulo, M., Lepidi, S., Tshomba, Y., Oderich, G. S., Haulon, S., Beck, A. W., Hertault, A., Savlania, A., Froio, A., Giaquinta, A., Zimmermann, T. A., Psyllas, A., Wanhainen, A., Marchetti, A. A., Queiroz, A. B., Kahlberg, A., Reyes-Valdivia, A., Schanzer, A., Tambyraja, A., Freyrie, A., Lorido, A., Millon, A., Ippoliti, A., Abai, B., Mees, B., Reutersberg, B., Maurel, B., Michel, B., Wahlgren, C. M., Cavazzini, C., Setacci, C., Lee, C. J., Ferrer, C., Bicknell, C., Raphael, C., Clair, D., Dawson, D. L., Arnaoutakis, D. J., Bockler, D., Kotelis, D., Mujagic, E., Chisci, E., Cieri, E., Gallitto, E., Marone, E. M., Ducasse, E., Verzini, F., Pecoraro, F., Serracino-Inglott, F., Benedetto, F., Speziale, F., Stilo, F., Alvarez-Marcos, F., Pagliariccio, G., Piffaretti, G., Lanza, G., Philipp, G., Geenberg, G., Jung, G., Melissano, G., Veraldi, G. F., Parlani, G., Faggioli, G., De Donato, G., Simonte, G., Colacchio, G., De Caridi, G., Pratesi, G., Spinella, G., Torsello, G., Leong Tan, G. W., Magee, G. A., Verhagen, H., Andrew, H., Koleilat, I., Ohman, J. W., De Vries, J. P. P. M., Budtz-Lilly, J., Black, J., Eldrup-Jorgensen, J., Hockley, J., Bath, J., Sobocinski, J., Van Herwaarden, J. A., Reinhard, K., Orion, K. C., Amankwah, K., Bertoglio, L., Di Marzo, L., Garriboli, L., Rizzo, L., Hakimi, M., Sheahan, M., Khashram, M., Schermerhorn, M., Lescan, M., Conrad, M., Davies, M. G., Czerny, M., Orrico, M., Eagleton, M. J., Smeds, M. R., Taurino, M., Wohlauer, M., Sharafuddin, M. J., Anna-Leonie, M., Reijnen, M., Antonello, M., Piazza, M. G., Settembre, N., Mouawad, N. J., Tsilimparis, N., Dias, N., Martinelli, O., Frigatti, P., Sirignano, P., Chong, P., Bevis, P., Dimuzio, P., Henke, P., Duppers, P., Holt, P., Helmio, P., Vriens, P., Pulli, R., Bellosta, R., Micheli, R., Veeraswamy, R., Cuff, R., Chiappa, R., Gattuso, R., Pini, R., Dalman, R. L., Milner, R., Scali, S. T., Bahia, S., Laukontaus, S., Trimarchi, S., Fernandez-Alonso, S., Deglise, S., Bellmunt-Montoya, S., Hofer, S., Yusuf, S. W., Ronchey, S., Bartoli, S., Bonvini, S., Camparini, S., Fazzini, S., Pirrelli, S., Horer, T., Bisdas, T., Vasudevan, T., Lattmann, T., Wyss, T. R., Maldonado, T., Pfammatter, T., Kolbel, T., Jakimowicz, T., Donati, T., Tracci, M., Bracale, U. M., Tolva, V. S., Riambau, V., Palazzo, V., Makaloski, V., Von Allmen, R. S., Dorigo, W., Mansour, W., Van Den Eynde, W., The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair: An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study, <<JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY>>, 2024; (Marzo): N/A-N/A. [doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2024.03.007] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/281459]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair An international expert opinion based Delphi consensus study.pdf

accesso aperto

Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 224.27 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
224.27 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/281459
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact