More than a decade after the first endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) device was approved for use in the United States, the prevalence and popularity of this procedure continue to rise. Longterm results have sufficiently maintained their initial favorable results in appropriately selected patients, and the enhancements of newer-generation devices continue to make the devices incrementally easier to implant with predictability and ease. Imaging systems and modalities have also contributed greatly to the success of EVAR, in some ways even outpacing the stent graft systems themselves in their ability to innovate and allow us to conduct our cases and follow-up more safely and efficiently.

But this is not to say we have reached the promised land of abdominal aortic aneurysm therapy, with no need for further study and technical refinement. There are still a great many patients whose anatomies are unsuitable for currently available devices, and many hospitals that are not able to perform a high volume of EVAR for one reason or another. In order to better understand the current state of this procedure, we have asked a variety of aortic intervention specialists to discuss their experiences and beliefs regarding how far EVAR has come, and what improvements are still necessary. In a bit of a break from our customary format, our cover story is presented in a series of specially tailored interviews with each expert.

The interviewees include experienced operators from a variety of backgrounds, including three different specialties and several countries around the globe. Each has worked extensively with multiple device platforms and all are engaged in recent or ongoing clinical trials. These Q&As cover a variety of topics related to EVAR and uniquely suited to each participant, from early device development and implantation experiences, to clinical trials in the United States, Europe, New Zealand, and Japan. The experts describe their work on clinical trials with new platforms, indications, challenging anatomic indications, and modern educational symposia. Opinions will differ—at times somewhat considerably— but this is very much a glimpse at the currently realities of EVAR performance in the global vascular community.

In addition to our feature on EVAR, we also have several department articles. Saher S. Sabri, MD; Ulku C. Turba, MD; and John F. Angle, MD, detail a case in which they used endovascular techniques to treat a patient who injured his subclavian and internal mammary arteries. Next, Gustavo S. Oderich, MD, discusses the need for a keen eye in identifying visceral ischemia, as well as some of the options for its treatment. We conclude our January issue with our monthly “An Interview With…” article, featuring Jafar Golzarian, MD, an expert in the field of embolization techniques.

The brief history of EVAR has been rich, productive, and collaborative. In order to build on its successes to date, we must make sure that collaboration and communication remain a part of its future. With this in mind, we are grateful for the unique perspectives shared by the vascular specialists who have given their time to this issue. On behalf of my fellow Chief Medical Editors, the Editorial Advisory Board, and the staff of Endovascular Today, we would also like to wish you a happy, healthy, and prosperous new year.