Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing and Chimney Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing in the Treatment of Type Ia and Type III Endoleaks After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

An International, Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study to Assess Technical Success and Clinical Outcomes of Patients Treated with an Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing Device for Type III Endoleak

INTRODUCTION

Type III endoleaks post-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) warrant treatment because they increase pressure within the aneurysm sac leading to increased rupture risk. The treatment may be difficult with regular endovascular devices. Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) might provide a treatment option for type III endoleaks, especially if located near the flow divider. This study aims to analyze clinical outcomes of EVAS for type III endoleaks after EVAR.

METHODS

This is an international, retrospective, observational cohort study including data from 8 European institutions.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were identified of which 80% had a type IIIb endoleak and the remainder (20%) a type IIIa endoleak. The median time between EVAR and EVAS was 49.5 months (28.5-89). Mean AAA diameter prior to EVAS revision was 76.6±19.9 mm. Technical success was achieved in 95%, 1 patient had technical failure due to a postoperative myocardial infarction resulting in death. Mean follow-up was 22.8±15.2 months. During follow-up 1 patient had a type Ia endoleak, and 1 patient had a new type IIIa endoleak at an untreated location. There were 5 patients with aneurysm growth. Five patients underwent AAA-related reinterventions indications being: growth with type II endoleak (n=3), type Ia endoleak (n=1), and iliac aneurysm (n=1). At 1-year follow-up, the freedom from clinical failure was 77.5%, freedom from all-cause mortality 94.7%, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality 95%, and freedom from aneurysm-related reinterventions 93.8%.

CONCLUSION

The EVAS relining can be safely performed to treat type III endoleaks with an acceptable technical success rate, a low 30-day mortality rate and no secondary ruptures at short-term follow-up. The relatively low clinical success rates, related to reinterventions and AAA enlargement, highlight the need for prolonged follow-up.

Novel Technique for the Treatment of Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Purpose

Open surgical repair of type Ia endoleak after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair/sealing (EVAR/EVAS) is associated with significant perioperative mortality and morbidity. Current endovascular redo techniques face limitations, especially when the infrarenal landing zone is inadequate and the previous endograft is rigid and features a short or no main body. We present a novel concept for the treatment of type Ia endoleak using a custom-made branched device.

Technique

The 5-branch-device (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) consists of a nitinol skeleton with branches, covered with a low-profile polyester fabric loaded in an 18F sheath. The device features a minimum of 2 proximal sealing stents and includes branches for renovisceral vessels as well as an additional 8 mm branch for the contralateral iliac limb. Implantation and sealing in the renovisceral vessels is carried out in standard fashion, using transfemoral and transaxillary access. Distal sealing is achieved by tapering the branched component into the ipsilateral iliac limb and using a bridging balloon-expandable or self-expandable stent-graft through the additional branch to the preexisting contralateral iliac limb.

Conclusion

Treatment of type Ia endoleak with a new custom-made device enables sufficient proximal seal while minimizing suprarenal aortic coverage and facilitates adequate component overlap. The low profile branched design accommodates implantation through the preexisting endograft and catheterization of target vessels.

Midterm single-center results after endovascular aneurysm sealing reveal a high rate of stent graft migration, secondary aneurysm ruptures, and device-related reinterventions

OBJECTIVE

To report procedural results and mid-term follow-up outcomes of patients treated with endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) for abdominal aortic disease.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, all patients treated with EVAS between March 2013 and January 2018 for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) or abdominal penetrating aortic ulcer were included. The datasets included demographics, aneurysm morphology, and procedural and clinical surveillance outcomes. Furthermore, patients treated within the original instructions for use (IFU-group) were compared with patients treated outside the IFU (non-IFU-group) with regard to survival, reintervention-free survival, freedom from type I endoleak, and freedom from stent graft migration.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were included (67 male; median age, 72.5 years). Sixty-five patients were treated for AAA and 5 patients for abdominal penetrating aortic ulcer. Sixty-nine cases were treated electively (98.6%). Technical success was achieved in 68 cases (97.1%). The median clinical follow-up was 50.5 months (interquartile range, 29.3-62.7 months) with a median computed tomography angiographic follow-up of 38.5 months (interquartile range, 17.1-60.2 months). There were five deaths during the study period (7.1%), four of which were aneurysm related (5.7%). Five secondary AAA ruptures were detected (7.1%). Overall, 25 of 70 patients (35.7%) underwent 35 reinterventions, mostly owing to thrombotic complications (18.6%), stent graft migration (17.1%), and type I endoleak (12.9%). Fifteen patients were treated outside of the IFU (non-IFU-group) (21.4%). The estimated reintervention-free survival for the entire cohort at 30 days and 1, 3, and 5 years was 94.3%, 88.5%, 72%, and 56.9%, respectively. Freedom from stent graft migration at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98.6%, 82.0%, and 47.3%, respectively. The estimated freedom from type I endoleak at 30 days and 1, 3, and 5 years in the IFU-group was 100%, 100%, 94.9% and, 91.1% and significantly different when compared with the non-IFU-group with 79.5%, 72.2%, 72.2%, and 72.2% (P = .012).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the technical and initial results were satisfying, the mid-term results were disappointing. The enforcement of a close follow-up protocol for all patients treated with EVAS, especially vigilant for stent graft migration to prevent secondary type I endoleak and rupture, is strongly recommended.