Preservation of hypogastric flow and control of iliac aneurysm size in the treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms using the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing endograft

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.

Refinement of anatomic indications for the Nellix System for endovascular aneurysm sealing based on 2-year outcomes from the EVAS FORWARD IDE trial

BACKGROUND

The Nellix System (Endologix, Inc, Irvine, Calif) for endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is a novel approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment and conceptually different from endovascular aneurysm repair, whereby polymer is employed to fill and actively manage the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac. One-year safety and effectiveness results of the Nellix pivotal trial demonstrated encouraging outcomes with very low morbidity and mortality and high procedural and treatment success. Two-year imaging revealed a signal of migration, leading to a field safety notification issued by the manufacturer on October 21, 2016, and a dedicated root cause analysis, resulting in refinements to the instructions for use (IFU). We report the 2-year results of the investigational device exemption pivotal trial stratified according to the new and original criteria for selection of patients.

METHODS

Comprehensive engineering evaluations, statistical analyses, and clinical assessments were conducted looking at patients enrolled in the pivotal trial (N = 150), roll-in cohort (N = 29), and continued access program (N = 154). All patients in all cohorts were treated on-IFU at the time of enrollment. Logistic regression models supported the mechanism that migration with Nellix is associated with a small aortic flow lumen relative to a large aneurysm thrombus burden and large aortic neck diameters. Based on these findings, refinements to the IFU criteria were applied, excluding patients with a thrombus index (maximum aneurysm sac/maximum flow lumen diameter) >1.4, aortic neck diameter >28 mm, and aortic neck conicity (>10% diameter change along the infrarenal neck) and requiring a 10-mm distal seal zone in the iliac artery.

RESULTS

Freedom from all-cause mortality at 2 years was 94%. Patient outcomes were then stratified on the refined morphologic criteria and analyzed retrospectively. Two-year freedom from composite endoleak was high among both cohorts (95% on-IFU vs 92% off-IFU). Freedom from migration was 97.7% on-IFU vs 93.2% off-IFU (P = .0125). Freedom from aneurysm enlargement was 98.1% on-IFU vs 93.5% off-IFU (P value is not available because of failure of log-rank test assumptions). Composite freedom from migration, type IA endoleak, or aneurysm expansion was 95.9% among the on-IFU cohort vs 85.1% in the off-IFU cohort (P = .0017).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the introduction of a novel therapy, the presentation of failure modes of EVAS over time was inevitable. Using detailed imaging as well as engineering and statistical analysis, we were able to understand risk factors for adverse events specific to EVAS and defined those patients best suited for Nellix. With this EVAS-specific approach to defining IFU, on-IFU patients were identified as those with large aneurysms with little thrombus that would be prone to type II endoleaks and sac expansion with traditional devices. When treated with Nellix, these patients were predicted to experience exceptional results, especially with regard to a low composite endoleak rate and low all-cause mortality.

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.

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.