Endovascular aneurysm sealing for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: 30-day outcomes of 105 patients in a single centre

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

BACKGROUND

The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE).

METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants.

RESULTS

Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available.

A Single Centre Long Term Follow Up of the Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing System

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical performance at long term follow up of endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS, Endologix Inc. Nellix, Irvine, CA, USA) in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

METHODS

Observational, prospective, single centre study of primary AAA interventions with EVAS (n = 117) from November 2013 to November 2016. Endpoints were primary technical success, Nellix device failure, freedom from open surgical conversion (OSC), freedom from secondary intervention, sac rupture, total mortality, and aneurysm related mortality at long term follow up.

RESULTS

The median age was 75 years (interquartile range [IQR] 70, 81 years) and 83% were male. The median AAA diameter was 58 mm (IQR 54, 60 mm). The median length of follow up was 6.2 years (IQR 5.6, 6.8 years). Primary technical success was 100%. Median time to Nellix failure was 5.6 years (IQR 3.3, 7.4 years). Freedom from Nellix failure at five and seven years was 54% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.2 - 63.8%) and 36% (95% CI 22.3 - 49.7%), respectively. Freedom from OSC at five and seven years was 63% (95% CI 53.2 - 72.8%) and 59% (95% CI 47 - 71%), respectively. The secondary intervention rate was 11.4/100 person years. Freedom from secondary intervention at five and seven years was 52% (95% CI 42.2 - 61.8%) and 51% (95% CI 41.2 - 60.8%), respectively. The cumulative mortality rate at five and seven years was 36% and 54%, respectively. Secondary sac rupture occurred in 9.4% (11/117) with a rate of 2/100 person years. Aneurysm related mortality was 12% (14/117) with a rate of 2.5/100 person years. The median survival was four years (IQR 3, 5.6 years). Thirty day mortality for acute OSC was 67% (n = 3) and 17.1% (6/35) for elective OSC.

CONCLUSION

Long term follow up showed an increased failure rate. Diligent surveillance after endovascular AAA treatment is mandatory, especially when promising new devices are put into clinical use.

A Meta-Analysis of Mid-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing

BACKGROUND-AIM

Several studies have been published showing conflicting results on the outcome after endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS). The aim of the present study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence to assess the efficacy of EVAS in the management of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

METHODS

An electronic search of the English medical literature, from 2010 to March 2021, was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to find studies relevant to outcome after EVAS.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 12 articles published between 2011 and 2021, including 1440 patients. In total, 79.3% of the included patients underwent aneurysm treatment according to the instructions for use. Technical success was 98.8%. Overall, 30-day mortality was 1.3%. Procedure-related complications were reported in 4% of the cohort. During median follow-up of 28.1 months (range 9-72 months), the pooled estimate of endoleak type I, migration and reinterventions was 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]=7-25), 16% (95% CI=9-23), and 19% (95% CI=11-28), respectively. In a sub-analysis, 7 studies (703 patients) reported outcome with a mean follow-up of more than 2 years (range 24-72 months). In these studies, the pooled estimate of endoleak type I, migration, and reinterventions was 25% (95% CI=13-38), 22% (95% CI=19-26), and 27% (95% CI=21-33), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients who have been treated with EVAS are in high risk for reintervention especially beyond 2 years following implantation. Close surveillance for patients treated with EVAS is mandatory.

Is Evar Feasible in Challenging Aortic Neck Anatomies? A Technical Review and Ethical Discussion

Background: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become an accepted alternative to open repair (OR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) despite “hostile” anatomies that may reduce its effectiveness. Guidelines suggest refraining from EVAR in such circumstances, but in clinical practice, up to 44% of EVAR procedures are performed using stent grafts outside their instruction for use (IFU), with acceptable outcomes. Starting from this “inconsistency” between clinical practice and guidelines, the aim of this contribution is to report the technical results of the use of EVAR in challenging anatomies as well as the ethical aspects to identify the criteria by which the “best interest” of the patient can be set. Materials and Methods: A literature review on currently available evidence on standard EVAR using commercially available endografts in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomies was conducted. Medline using the PubMed interface and The Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 6 May 2021, considering the following outcomes: technical success; need for additional procedures; conversion to OR; reintervention; migration; the presence of type I endoleaks; AAA-related mortality rate. Results: A total of 52 publications were selected by the investigators for a detailed review. All studies were either prospective or retrospective observational studies reporting the immediate, 30-day, and/or follow-up outcomes of standard EVAR procedures in patients with challenging neck anatomies. No randomized trials were identified. Fourteen different endo-grafts systems were used in the selected studies. A total of 45 studies reported a technical success rate ranging from 93 to 100%, and 42 the need for additional procedures (mean value of 9.04%). Results at 30 days: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 37 studies with a mean value of 2.65%; 31 studies reported a null migration rate and 32 a null conversion rate to OR; in 31 of the 35 studies that reported AAA-related mortality, the incidence was null. Mid-term follow-up: the incidence rate of type Ia endoleak was reported by 48 studies with a mean value of 6.65%; 30 studies reported a null migration rate, 33 a null conversion rate to OR, and 28 of the 45 studies reported that the AAA-related mortality incidence was null. Conclusions: Based on the present analysis, EVAR appears to be a safe and effective procedure—and therefore recommendable—even in the presence of hostile anatomies, in patients deemed unfit for OR. However, in order to identify and pursue the patient’s best interest, particular attention must be paid to the management of the patient’s informed consent process, which—in addition to being an essential ethical-legal requirement to legitimize the medical act—ensures that clinical data can be integrated with the patient’s personal preferences and background, beyond the therapeutic potential of the proposed procedures and what is generically stated in the guidelines.

Development and Comparison of Multimodal Models for Preoperative Prediction of Outcomes After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop and compare multimodal models for predicting outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) based on morphological, deep learning (DL), and radiomic features.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 979 patients (January 2010—December 2019) with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) who underwent elective EVAR procedures. A total of 486 patients (January 2010–December 2015) were used for morphological feature model development and optimization. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to determine significant morphological features of EVAR-related severe adverse events (SAEs) and to build a morphological feature model based on different machine learning algorithms. Subsequently, to develop the morphological feature model more easily and better compare with other modal models, 340 patients of AAA with intraluminal thrombosis (ILT) were used for automatic segmentation of ILT based on deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs). Notably, 493 patients (January 2016–December 2019) were used for the development and comparison of multimodal models (optimized morphological feature, DL, and radiomic models). Of note, 80% of patients were classified as the training set and 20% of patients were classified as the test set. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the predictive abilities of different modal models.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 69.9 years, the mean follow-up was 54 months, and 307 (31.4%) patients experienced SAEs. Statistical analysis revealed that short neck, angulated neck, conical neck, ILT, ILT percentage ≥51.6%, luminal calcification, double iliac sign, and common iliac artery index ≥1.255 were associated with SAEs. The morphological feature model based on the support vector machine had a better predictive performance with an AUC of 0.76, an accuracy of 0.76, and an F1 score of 0.82. Our DCNN model achieved a mean intersection over union score of more than 90.78% for the segmentation of ILT and AAA aortic lumen. The multimodal model result showed that the radiomic model based on logistics regression had better predictive performance (AUC 0.93, accuracy 0.86, and F1 score 0.91) than the optimized morphological feature model (AUC 0.62, accuracy 0.69, and F1 score 0.81) and the DL model (AUC 0.82, accuracy 0.85, and F1 score 0.89).

Conclusion

The radiomic model has better predictive performance for patient status after EVAR. The morphological feature model and DL model have their own advantages and could also be used to predict outcomes after EVAR.

A Statistical Shape Model of the Morphological Variation of the Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Neck

Hostile aortic neck characteristics, such as short length and large diameter, have been associated with type Ia endoleaks and reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, such characteristics partially describe the complex aortic neck morphology. A more comprehensive quantitative description of 3D neck shape might lead to new insights into the relationship between aortic neck morphology and EVAR outcomes in individual patients. This study identifies the 3D morphological shape components that describe the infrarenal aortic neck through a statistical shape model (SSM). Pre-EVAR CT scans of 97 patients were used to develop the SSM. Parameterization of the morphology was based on the center lumen line reconstruction, a triangular surface mesh of the aortic lumen, 3D coordinates of the renal arteries, and the distal end of the aortic neck. A principal component analysis of the parametrization of the aortic neck coordinates was used as input for the SSM. The SSM consisted of 96 principal components (PCs) that each described a unique shape feature. The first five PCs represented 95% of the total morphological variation in the dataset. The SSM is an objective model that provides a quantitative description of the neck morphology of an individual patient.

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.

The Fluid-Dynamics of Endo Vascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System failure

Purpose

The main objective of this work is to investigate hemodynamics phenomena occurring in EVAS (Endo Vascular Aneurysm Sealing), to understand if and how they could lead to type 1a endoleaks and following re-intervention. To this aim, methods based on computational fluid mechanics are implemented as a tool for checking the behavior of a specific EVAS configuration, starting from the post-operative conditions. Pressure and velocity fields are detailed and compared, for two configurations of the Nellix, one as attained after correct implantation and the other in pathological conditions, as a consequence of migration or dislocation of endobags.

Methods

The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach is used to simulate the behavior of blood within a segment of the aorta, before and after the abdominal bifurcation. The adopted procedure allows reconstructing the detailed vascular geometry from high-resolution computerized tomography (CT scan) and generating the mesh on which the equations of fluid mechanics are discretized and solved, in order to derive pressure and velocity field during heartbeats.

Results

The main results are obtained in terms of local velocity fields and wall pressures. Within the endobags, velocities are usually quite regular during the whole cardiac cycle for the post-implanted condition, whereas they are more irregular for the migrated case. The largest differences among the two cases are observed in the shape and location of the recirculation region in the rear part of the aorta and the region between the endobags, with the formation of a gap due to the migration of one or both of the two. In this gap, the pressure fields are highly different among the two conditions, showing pressure peaks and pressure gradients at least four times larger for the migrated case in comparison to the post-implanted condition.

Conclusions

In this paper, the migration of one or both endobags is supposed to be related to the existing differential pressures acting in the gap formed between the two, which could go on pushing the two branches one away from the other, thus causing aneurysm re-activation and endoleaks. Regions of flow recirculation and low-pressure drops are revealed only in case of endobag migration and in presence of an aneurysm. These regions are supposed to lead to possible plaque formation and atherosclerosis.

Long-term failure after endovascular aneurysm sealing in a real-life, single-center experience with the Nellix endograft

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is an innovative alternative to conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). EVAS relies on sac anchoring without proximal fixation to achieve sealing and should have allowed for the treatment of a broader range of anatomic features compared with standard EVAR. Despite the encouraging early reports, the mid- and long-term follow-up data have shown increased rates of failure. To address the issue, the manufacturer introduced revised instructions for use (IFU) in 2016. The present study reports the outcomes of this system after a median follow-up of 45 months.

METHODS

Data for all patients electively treated with EVAS at our institution were retrospectively collected. The patients were retrospectively reclassified according to the 2016 revised IFU of the device. All patients in the present series had undergone EVAS for the treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The primary end point was therapeutic failure: graft migration >5 mm, sac expansion >5 mm, type IA endoleak (Is2 and Is3 using the Van den Ham classification), type Ib endoleak, and secondary rupture. The overall mortality, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients had undergone elective treatment by EVAS from 2013 to 2018 for infrarenal AAAs. The median follow-up was 3.75 years. Therapeutic failure was observed in 31 of the 101 patients (30.7%), with no significant difference between the in-IFU and off-IFU 2016 subgroups. Failure occurred at a median interval of 34 months from the index procedure. Of the 101 patients, 6.9% had presented with secondary rupture. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 96.9% at 1 and 2 years and 89.9% at 5 years. Freedom from reintervention decreased over time: 94.7% at 1 year, 77% at 4 years, and 52.1% at 6 years. Of the 101 patients, 14 (13.9%) had undergone emergent or elective graft explantation.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAS performed worse than conventional endografts for several critical end points, regardless of any preoperative anatomic parameters. The incidence of therapeutic failures tended to increase over time, especially 4 years after the index procedure.

Three-Year Results of the Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing System for Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in Frail Patients with Poor Anatomical Features

Introduction:

Endovascular aneurysm sealing represents an alternative to advanced technology devices for compromised patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. We report our results of 15 fragile patients with very low-quality infrarenal necks treated with endovascular aneurysm sealing.

Material and methods:

All patients treated with Nellix device in our hospital between June 2015 and October 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoints are the following: overall survival and freedom from reintervention rates. The secondary endpoints are the following: technical success; 30-day mortality; abdominal aortic aneurysm–related mortality; and freedom from endoleak rate, complications, and surgical conversion rate.

Results:

Nellix was used in 15 patients, median age 75.5 years, of which 67% were unfit for open surgery. Mean aneurysm diameter was 60 mm. One-third (5/15) of the patients were inside the Nellix instructions for use. Technical success rate was 93.3%. No perioperative complications existed, and 30-day mortality was 0%. Median follow-up was 35 (interquartile range: 11–37) months. Survival rates at 1 and 3 years were 80% and 59.3%. Abdominal aortic aneurysm–related mortality occurred in 3 of 15 cases. Freedom from rupture rates at 1 and 3 years were 92.9% and 66%. Freedom from endoleak rates at 1 and 3 years were 92.9% and 74.5%. Freedom from reintervention rates at 1 and 3 years were 86.7% and 70.6%, with a dramatic drop to 37.1% at 4 years of follow-up. Three open surgery conversions were needed. There were no statistically significant differences in results between patients treated inside and outside instructions for use.

Conclusion:

The endovascular aneurysm sealing has shown encouraging short-term results, but its safety and effectiveness during time is questionable, because this system still carries high rates of reintervention, conversions for type IA endoleaks, and secondary aneurysm ruptures.

Techniques and future perspectives for the prevention and treatment of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

The presence of endoleaks remains one of the main drawbacks of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms leading to the increase of the size of the aneurysmal sac and in most of the cases to repeated interventions. A variety of devices and percutaneous techniques have been developed so far to prevent and treat this phenomenon, including sealing of the aneurysmal sac, endovascular embolisation, and direct sac puncture. The aim of this review is to analyse the indications, the effectiveness, and the future perspectives for the prevention and treatment of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

In Situ Generated Medical Devices

Medical devices play a major role in all areas of modern medicine, largely contributing to the success of clinical procedures and to the health of patients worldwide. They span from simple commodity products such as gauzes and catheters, to highly advanced implants, e.g., heart valves and vascular grafts. In situ generated devices are an important family of devices that are formed at their site of clinical function that have distinct advantages. Among them, since they are formed within the body, they only require minimally invasive procedures, avoiding the pain and risks associated with open surgery. These devices also display enhanced conformability to local tissues and can reach sites that otherwise are inaccessible. This review aims at shedding light on the unique features of in situ generated devices and to underscore leading trends in the field, as they are reflected by key developments recently in the field over the last several years. Since the uniqueness of these devices stems from their in situ generation, the way they are formed is crucial. It is because of this fact that in this review, the medical devices are classified depending on whether their in situ generation entails chemical or physical phenomena.

The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system: current perspectives

Background

The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) system is a novel approach for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EVAS in the management of patients with AAA.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and bibliographic reference lists to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes in patients with asymptomatic, non-ruptured AAA treated with EVAS with the Nellix device. We pooled dichotomous outcome data using random-effects models.

Results

We identified 14 single-arm observational studies, reporting a total of 1,510 patients. The pooled estimate of technical success was 99% (95% CI =98–100; heterogeneity: P=0.869, I²=0%). Adjunctive procedures were carried out in 39% (95% CI =19–63; heterogeneity: P<0.0001, I²=88%). Two cases of aneurysm rupture were reported within 30 days of treatment (0.7%, 95% CI =0.3–1.6; heterogeneity: P=0.923, I²=0%) and another five cases of rupture occurred during follow-up (0.8%, 95% CI =0.4–1.6; heterogeneity: P=0.958, I²=0%). The pooled estimates of early (within 30 days) and late (during follow-up) type I endoleak were 2.8 % (95% CI =1.8–4.2; heterogeneity: P=0.254, I²=18%) and 1.9% (95% CI =1.3–2.8; heterogeneity: P=0.887, I²=0%), respectively. Sac enlargement was noted in 3.1% (95% CI =1.8–5.4; heterogeneity: P=0.419, I²=0%) and device migration in 2.1% (95% CI =0.8–5.3; heterogeneity: P=0.004, I²=65%). The early and late reintervention rates were 2.7% (95% CI =1.7–4.2; heterogeneity: P=0.183, I²=27%) and 3.5% (95% CI =2.3–5.5; heterogeneity: P=0.061, I²=42%), respectively. The pooled estimate of 30-day mortality was 1.5% (95% CI =0.9–2.6; heterogeneity: P=0.559, I²=0%) and the pooled estimate of aneurysm-related death during follow-up was 1.0% (95% CI =0.6–1.9; heterogeneity: P=0.872, I²=0%).

Conclusion

Reported outcomes of EVAS are acceptable. Type I endoleak, sac enlargement, device migration, and aneurysm rupture are recognized complications. High-level research is required to investigate potential advantages of EVAS over conventional treatments.

Secondary Fill Minimizes Gutter Size in Chimney EVAS Configurations In Vitro

Purpose: To investigate in an in vitro model if secondary endobag filling can reduce gutter size during chimney endovascular aneurysm sealing (chEVAS). Materials and Methods: Nellix EVAS systems were deployed in 2 silicone juxtarenal aneurysm models with suprarenal aortic diameters of 19 and 24 mm. Four configurations were tested: EVAS with 6-mm balloon-expandable (BE) or self-expanding (SE) chimney grafts (CGs) in the renal branches of both models. Balloons were inflated simultaneously in the CGs and main endografts during primary and secondary endobag filling and polymer curing. Computed tomography (CT) was performed immediately after the primary and secondary fills. Cross-sectional lumen areas were measured on the CT images to calculate gutter volumes and percent change. CG compression was calculated as the reduction in lumen surface area measured perpendicular to the central lumen line. The largest gutter volume and highest compression were presented per CG configuration per model. Results: Secondary endobag filling reduced the largest gutter volumes from 99.4 to 73.1 mm³ (13.2% change) and 84.2 to 72.0 mm³ (27.6% change) in the BECG configurations and from 67.2 to 44.0 mm³ (34.5% change) and 92.7 to 82.3 mm³ (11.2% change) in the SECG configurations in the 19- and 24-mm models, respectively. Secondary endobag filling increased CG compression in 6 of 8 configurations. BECG compression changed by −0.2% and 5.4% and by −1.0% and 0.4% in the 19- and 24-mm models, respectively. SECG compression changed by 10.2% and 16.0% and by 7.2% and 7.3% in the 19- and 24-mm models, respectively. Conclusion: Secondary endobag filling reduced paragraft gutters; however, this technique did not obliterate them. Increased CG compression and prolonged renal ischemia time should be considered if secondary endobag filling is used.

A Comparison of Manual and Three-Dimensional Modalities in Predicting Nellix Polymer Volume

Purpose

Achieving an effective seal with the Nellix endovascular aneurysm system is dependent on filling the stent bags with an appropriate volume of polymer. Calculating this volume preoperatively is essential and can be performed manually or using three-dimensional (3D) software. The aim of this project was to compare the accuracy of these two methods relative to the actual polymer volume used.

Materials and Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing Nellix aneurysm repair were included in this retrospective study. Operation notes were analysed for the polymer volume used intra-operatively. Predicted volumes for all patients had been calculated on picture archiving and communication system (PACS) using a manual ‘segmental cylinder’ method. Computed tomography angiograms were then re-analysed using the Synapse 3D PACS update. The difference between groups was assessed using a paired t-test.

Results

Twenty-eight patients were included in the analysis; 26 men (92.9%) and 2 women (7.1%); median age 80.9 years (interquartile range, 72.5–84.5 years). The mean volume of polymer used was 103 mL. The mean manual-derived prediction was 100.1 mL (P=0.365) and 3D-derived prediction 110.2 mL (P<0.001). Manual prediction led to an average 2.8% underestimate of polymer volume whilst 3D prediction led to an average 7.0% overestimate.

Conclusion

Calculating predicted polymer volume for the Nellix system is more accurate using a manual approach then the 3D alternative. Whilst this method is more time-consuming, there is no significant difference when compared to the actual volume used. Quicker 3D software predictions can be utilised, but their tendency to overestimate should be recognized and taken into account during planning.

Midterm results of endovascular aneurysm sealing to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) represents a novel approach to the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. It uses polymer technology to achieve an anatomic seal within the sac of the aneurysm. This cohort study reports the early clinical outcomes, technical refinements, and learning curve during the initial EVAS experience at a single institution.

METHODS

Results from 150 consecutive EVAS cases for intact, infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms are reported here. These cases were undertaken between March 2013 and July 2015. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected for each patient prospectively.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 76.6 years (interquartile range, 70.2-80.9 years), and 87.3% were male. Median aneurysm diameter was 62.0 mm (IQR, 58.0-69.0 mm). Adverse neck morphology was seen in 69 (46.0%) patients, including aneurysm neck length <10 mm (17.3%), neck diameter >32 mm or <18 mm (8.7%), and neck angulation >60 degrees (15.3%). Median follow-up was 687 days (IQR, 463-897 days); 37 patients (24.7%) underwent reintervention. The rates of unresolved endoleak are 1.3% type IA, 0.7% type IB, and 2.7% type I. There were no type III endoleaks. There have been seven secondary ruptures in this cohort; all but one of these patients survived after reintervention. Only one rupture occurred in an aneurysm that had been treated within the manufacturer's instructions for use (IFU).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of unresolved endoleaks is satisfactorily low. The incidence of secondary rupture is of concern; however, when the IFU are adhered to, the rate is very low. The results of this study suggest that working within the IFU yields better clinical results.

Two-Year Outcomes of the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System for Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Purpose: To analyze the 2-year outcomes of endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) according to 2 versions of the instructions for use (IFU). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted involving 355 consecutive patients treated with the first-generation EVAS device from April 2013 to December 31, 2015, at 3 high-volume centers. Out of 355 patients treated with EVAS, 264 were elective asymptomatic infrarenal EVAS procedures suitable for analysis. In this cohort, 168 (63.3%) patients were treated within the IFU 2013 criteria; of these 48 (18.2%) were in compliance with the revised IFU 2016 version. Results: Overall technical success was 98.2% (165/168) in the IFU 2013 group and 97.9% (47/48) in the IFU 2016 subgroup (p=0.428). The 2-year freedom from reintervention estimates were 89.7% (IFU 2013) and 95.7% (IFU 2016), with significantly more reinterventions in the first 45 cases (p=0.005). The stenosis/occlusion estimates were 6.5% (IFU 2013) and 4.2% (IFU 2016; p=0.705). Nine (5.4%) endoleaks (8 type Ia and 1 type Ib) were observed within the IFU 2013 cohort; 3 (2.1%) were in the IFU 2016 subgroup (p=0.583). Migration ≥10 mm or ≥5 mm requiring intervention was reported in 12 (7.1%) patients in the IFU 2013 cohort but none within the IFU 2016 subgroup. Ten (6.0%) patients demonstrated aneurysm growth in the IFU 2013 cohort, of which 2 (4.2%) were in the IFU 2016 subgroup. Overall survival and freedom from aneurysm-related death estimates at 2 years were 90.9% and 97.6% in the IFU 2013 cohort (IFU 2016: 95.5% and 100.0%). The prevalence of complications seemed lower within IFU 2016 without significant differences. Conclusion: This study shows acceptable 2-year results of EVAS used within the IFU, without significant differences between the 2 IFU versions, though longer follow-up is indicated. The refined IFU significantly reduced the applicability of the technique.

Preliminary results of endovascular aneurysm sealing from the multicenter Italian Research on Nellix Endoprosthesis (IRENE) study

OBJECTIVE

Because of advances in technology and experience of the operator, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has supplanted open repair to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The low 30-day mortality and morbidity of EVAR make the endovascular approach particularly suitable for patients at high surgical risk. However, endoleak or endograft migration requiring secondary intervention or open surgical conversion is a limitation of EVAR. The Nellix system (Endologix, Inc, Irvine, Calif) has been designed to seal the entire AAA to overcome these limitations with EVAR. We report the results of a retrospective, multicenter study with endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) aimed to assess technical success, procedure-related mortality, complications, and reinterventions.

METHODS

This study included patients selected for elective treatment with the Nellix device per the endovascular repair protocol at 16 Italian vascular centers. All patients were enrolled in a postoperative surveillance imaging program including duplex ultrasound investigations, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance controls following local standards of care.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2015, there were 335 patients (age, 75.5 ± 7.4 years; 316 men) who underwent elective EVAS. In 295 cases (88.0%), EVAS was performed under standard instructions for use of the Nellix system. Preoperative aneurysm diameter was 55.5 ± 9.4 mm (range, 46-65 mm). The inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar arteries emerging from the AAA were patent in 61.8% and 81.3% of cases, respectively. Chimney grafts were electively carried out in eight cases (2.4%). One (0.3%) intraprocedural type IB endoleak was observed and promptly corrected. Device deployment was successful in all patients, with no perioperative mortality. Early (≤30 days) complications included 1 (0.3%) type IA endoleak, 2 (0.6%) type II endoleaks (0.6%), 2 (0.6%) stent occlusions (0.6%), 3 (0.9%) distal embolizations, and 2 (0.2%) femoral artery dissections. Six (2.9%) patients underwent reinterventions. At 1-year follow-up, complications included 3 (1.1%) type II endoleaks, 4 (1.4%) type IA endoleaks, 1 (0.3%) type IB endoleak, 2 (0.7%) distal stent migrations, 5 (1.8%) distal embolizations, and 1 (0.3%) stent occlusion. Twelve patients (3.7%) underwent reinterventions, including four (1.4%) surgical conversions due to aortoduodenal fistula (1), endograft infection (1), and type IA endoleak that was unsuccessfully treated percutaneously (2). Two AAA-related deaths occurred. Freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention was 98.3% at 1-month and 94.7% at 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary results of this real-world multicenter study showed that EVAS with Nellix for the management of AAAs appears feasible. This device platform is associated with acceptable procedure-related mortality and low overall complication and reintervention rates. Definitive conclusions on the value of this novel device await long-term follow-up data.

Determination of Stent Frame Displacement After Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing

Purpose: To describe and validate a new methodology for visualizing and quantifying 3-dimensional (3D) displacement of the stent frames of the Nellix endosystem after endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS). Methods: The 3D positions of the stent frames were registered to 5 fixed anatomical landmarks on the post-EVAS computed tomography (CT) scans, facilitating comparison of the position and shape of the stent frames between consecutive follow-up scans. Displacement of the proximal and distal ends of the stent frames, the entire stent frame trajectories, as well as changes in distance between the stent frames were determined for 6 patients with >5-mm displacement and 6 patients with <5-mm displacement at 1-year follow-up. The measurements were performed by 2 independent observers; the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine interobserver variability. Results: Three types of displacement were identified: displacement of the proximal and/or distal end of the stent frames, lateral displacement of one or both stent frames, and stent frame buckling. The ICC ranged from good (0.750) to excellent (0.958). No endoleak or migration was detected in the 12 patients on conventional CT angiography at 1 year. However, of the 6 patients with >5-mm displacement on the 1-year CT as determined by the new methodology, 2 went on to develop a type Ia endoleak in longer follow-up, and displacement progressed to >15 mm for 2 other patients. No endoleak or progressive displacement was appreciated for the patients with <5-mm displacement. Conclusion: The sac anchoring principle of the Nellix endosystem may result in several types of displacement that have not been observed during surveillance of regular endovascular aneurysm repairs. The presented methodology allows precise 3D determination of the Nellix endosystems and can detect subtle displacement better than standard CT angiography. Displacement >5 mm on the 1-year CT scans reconstructed with the new methodology may forecast impaired sealing and anchoring of the Nellix endosystem.

Aneurysm sealing

Compulsory registration needed

Management of Immediate Post-Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Type Ia Endoleaks and Late Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Post-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) endoleaks and the need for reintervention are challenging. Additional endovascular treatment is advised for type Ia endoleaks detected on post-EVAR completion angiogram. This study analyzed management and late outcomes of these endoleaks.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from EVAR patients during a 10-year period. All post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks on completion angiogram were identified (group A) and their early (30-day) and late outcomes were compared with outcomes of patients without endoleaks (group B). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for survival analysis, sac expansion, late type Ia endoleak, and reintervention.

RESULTS

Seventy-one of 565 (12.6%) patients had immediate post-EVAR type Ia endoleak. Early intervention (proximal aortic cuffs and/or stenting) was used in 56 of 71 (79%) in group A vs 31 of 494 (6%) in group B (p < 0.0001). Late type Ia endoleak was noted in 9 patients (13%) in group A at a mean follow-up of 28 months vs 10 patients (2%) in group B at a mean follow-up of 32 months (p < 0.0001). Late sac expansion and reintervention rates were 9% and 10% for group A vs 5% and 3% for group B (p = 0.2698 and p = 0.0198), respectively. Freedom rates from late type Ia endoleaks at 1, 3, and 5 years for group A were 88%, 85%, and 80% vs 98%, 98%, and 96% for group B (p < 0.001); and for late intervention, were 94%, 92%, and 77% for group A, and 99%, 97%, and 95% for group B (p = 0.007), respectively. Survival rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks are associated with higher rates of early interventions, late endoleaks and reintervention, which will necessitate strict post-EVAR surveillance.

Patient selection for endovascular sac sealing of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Endovascular sealing is a developing technique for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm that draws on novel concepts utilizing polymer filling of endobags within the aorto-iliac lumen. The morphologic indications and patient selection, while similar to those of endovascular aneurysm repair, differ in some regards. The Instructions for Use for the Nellix sealing device may expand the indications for aneurysm treatment and are closely scrutinized in this article. The authors draw on current evidence and their own experience and opinion in the discussion around appropriate patient selection and its influence on outcomes after endovascular aneurysm sealing. A recommendation for stricter adherence to Instructions for Use in the early phase of clinical experience is made, with acknowledgement that the natural evolution of endovascular aneurysm sealing may involve more challenging cases.

Clinical outcomes after Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing

The published evidence on clinical outcomes of Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has confirmed low procedural morbidity and reintervention rate. This early clinical experience with Nellix is encouraging, despite the device and procedural steps being in evolution, and patients being treated outside of the recommended instructions for use. The long-term follow-up of a treated patient cohort is now available and demonstrates low aneurysm-related mortality and morbidity. The initial experience with the commercially available Nellix device was captured in a multicenter report involving 171 patients and two independently monitored, company-sponsored device registries (EVAS Forward Global Trial and Forward US Investigational Device Exemption Trial). All three clinical studies report a 99% procedural technical success, low mortality, and persistent endoleak rate with re-intervention rates comparable to conventional EVR device registries. Nellix EVAS is applicable to a range of aneurysm anatomies, including patients with isolated of concomitant iliac artery aneurysms. The post-procedural imaging appearances after Nellix EVAS are unique due to the AAA sac polymer, change with time, but are now well understood.

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm sealing: A systematic review of early outcomes

Objectives

There has been a clear move towards endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms owing to better peri-operative outcomes compared with open surgical repair. However, follow-up has continued to reveal relatively high rates of endoleaks and re-interventions. Improvements in endovascular stent-grafts aim to decrease these complications. This systematic review aims to determine the early outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm sealing.

Methods

Standard PRISMA guidelines were followed. A literature search was performed with the aim to extract any publication related to the endovascular aneurysm sealing device.

Results

The total number of patients in this systematic review of 11 studies is 684, with a mean age of 73.2 years, and 587 (88.0%) males. The majority were undergoing elective procedures ( n = 606, 91.0%), the remainder as emergencies ( n = 30, 4.5% as ruptures, n = 30, 4.5% as symptomatic). Technical success rate including emergency cases was 99.1%. Thirty-day mortality rate was 2.6% ( n = 17) including all cases, and 1.0% ( n = 6) including elective cases only. Thirty -day endoleak detection rate was 4.7% ( n = 31) including all cases, and 4.8% ( n = 29) including elective cases only. Thirty-day aneurysm-related re-intervention rate was 5.7% ( n = 38) including all cases, and 4.6% ( n = 28) including elective cases only. There was no conversion to open surgery within 30 days post-op in the elective cases. There were three delayed conversions to open surgery within 30 days and one report of stent migration causing rupture in the emergency setting.

Conclusions

This novel endovascular aneurysm-sealing device for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has shown respectable early outcomes. Good technical success rates, in both elective and emergency settings, low rates of all-type endoleaks and low re-intervention rates have all been demonstrated. It is proving to be a safe alternative to open and endovascular aneurysm repair; however, longer term follow-up results are needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the device in the long term.

Three-Dimensional Analysis of Component Stability of the Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing System After Treatment of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Purpose: To assess short-term stability and conformational changes of the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System using 3-dimensional (3D) analysis. Methods: Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans obtained at 0, 3, and 12 months in 24 patients (mean age 75±7 years; 22 men) who underwent EVAS between December 2013 and December 2014 for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (within the instructions for use) were evaluated for stent-graft deviation in multiple planes using dedicated 3D analysis software. In addition, 2D analysis using an anatomically fixed reference landmark was performed to assess craniocaudal migration. Clinical and follow-up data of the patients were recorded and matched with results of the imaging analysis. Results: Overall stability of the Nellix endografts was promising. Relevant conformational changes in the majority of cases were limited to the iliac graft segment and were clinically benign in all cases. Conversely, the only deviation of the proximal stent-graft segment was found in a patient with type Ia endoleak. Additional 2D analysis found relevant (≥5 mm) caudal migration of the Nellix stent-graft in 6 patients, including the one with the type Ia endoleak. In 3 patients, 3D analysis demonstrated the absence of relevant conformational changes of the endografts despite caudal migration. Conclusion: Overall stability of the separate EVAS stent-grafts is promising in the short term. Relevant conformational changes (stent-graft deviation) in the majority of cases were benign and confined to the iliac segment.

Endovascular aneurysm sealing addresses several limitations of conventional endovascular aneurysm repair

Endovascular aneurysm repair has enabled a broad population of patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm to be treated by a less-invasive technique. However, endovascular aneurysm repair has therapeutic limitations, including the need for lifelong surveillance and a higher rate of secondary interventions than open repair. These outcomes can promote patient dissatisfaction and result in increased health care costs and associated morbidity and mortality. The primary reason for secondary interventions is continued abdominal aortic aneurysm sac enlargement due to endoleaks. Conventional endovascular aneurysm repair procedures do not address aortic branch vessels that are ligated during open repairs. Secondary measures to occlude these branch vessels have shown efficacy in limiting sac growth, but do not predictably eliminate the need for further interventions. Endovascular aneurysm sealing is a new technique that addresses some of the limitations of conventional endovascular repair. Endovascular aneurysm sealing secures the stent graft flow lumens within a biostable polymer. This stability prevents stent migration while also sealing branch vessels that are otherwise not addressed by other endovascular devices. This new approach to endovascular repair has shown early promise in reducing the rates of endoleak and need for secondary interventions, while opening up the possibility of durable endovascular repair to a more challenging type of anatomy.

Secondary interventions after endovascular aneurysm sac sealing: endoleak embolization and limb-related interventions

The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system is a novel alternative to conventional endovascular aneurysm repair for aortic aneurysm management using paired balloon expandable endografts supported by polymer-filled endobags to achieve sealing and anatomic fixation. Part of the promise of endovascular aneurysm sealing is increased resistance to lateral and longitudinal forces and thus a potential for reduced rates of device-related failures, particularly endoleaks. Initial efficacy data on this device are encouraging, but our knowledge of its associated complications and their management is limited. Reported adverse events include Type 1 and 2 endoleaks, graft stenosis and occlusion. The aim of this article is to review the early experience of endovascular aneurysm sealing focusing on the incidence, significance, and management of device-related complications.

Extended use of endovascular aneurysm sealing: Chimneys for juxtarenal aneurysms

Hostile infrarenal aortic neck anatomy presents a challenge for the endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Open surgical repair has been seen as the gold standard treatment for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm; however, endovascular techniques are now becoming more prevalent, particularly in patients deemed high risk for morbidity and mortality with open repair. The morphology of an aneurysm is a determinant of long-term outcomes, and short aneurysm necks are associated with poorer outcomes and a higher rate of secondary reinterventions. Parallel grafts have been used in combination with endovascular aneurysm repair to elongate the sealing zone into the paravisceral segment of the aorta. This technique is associated with a risk of proximal Type I endoleak due to "guttering." This risk may be decreased when parallel grafts are used in combination with endovascular aneurysm sealing and, as such, this technique may represent an alternative to current techniques for the treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm, such as the use of conventional bifurcated grafts (with or without parallel grafts) and fenestrated endovascular stent grafts.

Extended use of endovascular aneurysm sealing for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) is now an established treatment modality for suitable patients presenting with aneurysm rupture. EVAR for ruptured aneurysms reduces transfusion, mechanical ventilation, intensive care. and hospital stay when compared with open surgery. In the emergency setting, however, EVAR is limited by low applicability due to adverse clinical or anatomical characteristics and increased need for reintervention. In addition, ongoing bleeding from aortic side branches post-EVAR can cause hemodynamic instability, larger hematomas, and abdominal compartment syndrome. Endovascular aneurysm sealing, based on polymer filling of the aneurysm, has the potential to overcome some of the limitations of EVAR for ruptured aneurysms and to improve outcomes. Recent literature suggests that endovascular aneurysm sealing can be performed with early mortality similar to that of EVAR for ruptured aortic aneurysms, but experience is limited to a few centers and a small number of patients. The addition of chimney grafts can increase the applicability of endovascular aneurysm sealing in order to treat short-neck and juxtarenal aneurysms as an alternative to fenestrated endografts. Further evaluation of the technique, with larger longitudinal studies, is necessary before advocating wider implementation of endovascular aneurysm sealing in the emergency setting.

Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing: Early and Midterm Results From the EVAS FORWARD Global Registry

PURPOSE

To report the early and 12-month results of a global registry of patients treated with endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

METHODS

The EVAS FORWARD Global Registry was a postmarket, multicenter, open-label, single-arm registry that enrolled 277 patients (mean age 75 years; 228 men) treated with the Nellix EVAS system for nonruptured AAAs at 18 sites over a 1-year period. The cohort had challenging aortic anatomy, with 17% having a proximal aortic neck length <10 mm, 8% a neck angulation >60°, and 20% an iliac diameter >25 mm. Baseline and follow-up computed tomography images were assessed by an independent core laboratory, and major adverse events were reviewed by an independent safety committee.

RESULTS

Three patients died within 30 days of the procedure (none device-related). There were 13 endoleaks recorded in this time frame: 8 type Ia, 1 type Ib, and 5 type II. Root cause analysis demonstrated that the majority of type Ia endoleaks were due to technical error (low device placement and underfilling of the endobags). Between 30 days and 1 year, there were 4 new type Ia endoleaks; all were treated. There was also 1 type III endoleak between a Nellix device and a distal extension limb. At 1 year, the persistent endoleak rate was 0.7% (1 type Ia and 1 type II). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from types I and II endoleak at 12-month follow-up were 96% and 98%, respectively. The estimate of freedom from open conversion (n=7) was 98% at 12 months and the rate of freedom from any reintervention was 92%. The need for secondary intervention was associated with aortic morphology; for patients meeting the requirements of the instructions for use (IFU), the freedom from reintervention at 12 months was 98% compared with 86% when the implant was outside the IFU (p=0.009). At 1 year, the estimates of freedom from aortic-related and all-cause mortality were 98% and 95%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The EVAS FORWARD Global Registry documents the 12-month outcome of EVAS in an unselected group of patients with challenging aortic morphology. The results at present appear acceptable with regard to perioperative outcomes and complications. The type II endoleak rate is low. The place of EVAS in the armamentarium of techniques to treat AAAs will be defined by durability data in the longer term.

Low-level laser therapy and Calendula officinalis in repairing diabetic foot ulcers

Abstract OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of low-level laser therapy isolated and associated with Calendula officinalis oil in treating diabetic foot ulcers. METHOD An experimental, randomized, controlled, prospective, interventional clinical case study using a quantitative approach. The sample consisted of 32 diabetic patients of both genders. Participants were randomly divided into four groups. Doppler Ultrasound evaluation of the Ankle-Brachial Index, brief pain inventory and analog pain scale were performed at baseline and after 30 days. RESULTS Reduced pain was observed in the Low-level laser therapy and Low-level laser therapy associated with Essential Fatty Acids groups (p<0.01). Regarding the Ankle-Brachial Index and Doppler Ultrasound, all groups remained stable. By analyzing lesion area reduction, Low-level laser therapy associated with Essential fatty acids group showed a significance of p=0.0032, and the Low-level laser therapy group showed p=0.0428. CONCLUSION Low-level laser therapy, performed alone or associated with the Calendula officinalis oil was effective in relieving pain and accelerating the tissue repair process of diabetic foot.

Endovascular Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: the Year in Review

OPINION STATEMENT

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the predominant method of treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The use of conscious sedation with local anesthesia and percutaneous femoral access has further decreased the morbidity of the procedure. Current devices can more effectively manage increasingly "hostile" aneurysm necks, while chimney grafts or dedicated fenestrated stent-grafts can be used for juxta-renal disease with favorable results. However, endovascular repair does present a new set of challenges, and endoleaks remain an area of concern. While there is general consensus that type I and type III endoleaks require treatment, type II endoleaks are the topic of ongoing research and debate. Development of devices and techniques to prevent and treat endoleak continues to progress. Advances in contrast-enhanced ultrasound are reducing reliance on computed tomography for post-operative monitoring. This is an important step in this population at high risk for the development of kidney failure. Despite these many innovations, further research is needed to optimize the care of patients with AAA.