Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the preferred intervention option for aortic aneurysms and dissections. This is because EVAR is much less invasive than the alternative open surgery repair. While in-hospital mortality rates are smaller for EVAR than open repair (1%–2% vs. 3%–5%), the early benefits of EVAR are lost after 3 years due to larger rates of complications in the EVAR group. Clinicians follow instructions for use (IFU) when possible, but are left with personal experience on how to best proceed and what choices to make with respect to stent-graft (SG) model choice, sizing, procedural options, and their implications on long-term outcomes. Computational modeling of SG deployment in EVAR and tissue remodeling after intervention offers an alternative way of testing SG designs in silico, in a personalized way before intervention, to ultimately select the strategies leading to better outcomes. Further, computational modeling can be used in the optimal design of SGs in cases of complex geometries. In this review, we address some of the difficulties and successes associated with computational modeling of EVAR procedures. There is still work to be done in all areas of EVAR in silico modeling, including model validation, before models can be applied in the clinic, but much progress has already been made. Critical to clinical implementation are current efforts focusing on developing fast algorithms that can achieve (near) real-time solutions, as well as ways of dealing with inherent uncertainties related to patient aortic wall degradation on an individualized basis. We are optimistic that EVAR modeling in the clinic will soon become a reality to help clinicians optimize EVAR interventions and ultimately reduce EVAR-associated complications.     «

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the preferred intervention option for aortic aneurysms and dissections. This is because EVAR is much less invasive than the alternative open surgery repair. While in-hospital mortality rates are smaller for EVAR than open repair (1%–2% vs. 3%–5%), the early benefits of EVAR are lost after 3 years due to larger rates of complications in the EVAR group. Clinicians follow instructions for use (IFU) when possible, but are left with personal experience on...     »