Migration and sac expansion as modes of midterm therapeutic failure after endovascular aneurysm sealing

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.

First Case of Nellix Stent Rupture in a Huge Symptomatic Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Who Underwent Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing 7 Years Before

PURPOSE

Despite encouraging early results, mid- and long-term follow-up of endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) has shown increased rates of failure mainly associated with endoleak detection and progressive bag separation with aneurysm reperfusion.

CASE REPORT

We present the first case of a Nellix endograft stent fracture detected in a 91-year-old male patient, presenting with widespread abdominal pain, 7 years after elective treatment of an abdominal aortic aneurysm by EVAS. Considering the sudden and unexpected nature of the event, an in-depth analysis of the possible causes of this structural failure has been performed.

CONCLUSION

Material fatigue could be another significant cause of late EVAS failure and should be carefully assessed in addition to endoleak detection during follow-up.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The case presented in this article further underlines the importance of a strict long term follow-up protocol in every patients who underwent EVAS.

Endovascular aortic repair with sac embolization for the prevention of type II endoleaks (the EVAR-SE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled multicentre study in Germany

BACKGROUND

Beyond a certain threshold diameter, abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are to be treated by open surgical or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In a quarter of patients who undergo EVAR, inversion of blood flow in the inferior mesenteric artery or lumbar arteries may lead to type II endoleak (T2EL), which is associated with complications (e.g. AAA growth, secondary type I endoleak, rupture). As secondary interventions to treat T2EL often fail and may be highly invasive, prevention of T2EL is desirable. The present study aims to assess the efficacy of sac embolization (SE) with metal coils during EVAR to prevent T2EL in patients at high risk.

METHODS

Over a 24-month recruitment period, a total of 100 patients undergoing EVAR in four vascular centres (i.e. Klinikum rechts der Isar of the Technical University of Munich, University Hospital Augsburg, University Hospital Dresden, St. Joseph's Hospital Wiesbaden) are to be included in the present study. Patients at high risk for T2EL (i.e. ≥ 5 efferent vessels covered by endograft or aneurysmal thrombus volume <40%) are randomized to one group receiving standard EVAR and another group receiving EVAR with SE. Follow-up assessments postoperatively, after 30 days, and 6 months involve contrast-enhanced ultrasound scans (CEUS) and after 12 months an additional computed tomography angiography (CTA) scan. The presence of T2EL detected by CEUS or CTA after 12 months is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints comprise quality of life (quantified by the SF-36 questionnaire), reintervention rate, occurrence of type I/III endoleak, aortic rupture, death, alteration of aneurysm volume, or diameter. Standardized evaluation of CTA scans happens through a core lab. The study will be terminated after the final follow-up visit of the ultimate patient.

DISCUSSION

Although preexisting studies repeatedly indicated a beneficial effect of SE on T2EL rates after EVAR, patient relevant outcomes have not been assessed until now. The present study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to assess the impact of SE on quality of life. Further unique features include employment of easily assessable high-risk criteria, a contemporary follow-up protocol, and approval to use any commercially available coil material. Overcoming limitations of previous studies might help SE to be implemented in daily practice and to enhance patient safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05665101. Registered on 23 December 2022.

Endovascular Repair of a Failed Nellix Endograft Proximal Sealing Zone Using the Altura Stent-Graft: A Case Report and Literature Review

Endovascular aortic aneurysm sealing (EVAS) with the Nellix endograft was initially considered a groundbreaking and acceptable alternative to conventional endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, with encouraging initial results. However, long-term follow-up has revealed a high incidence of endograft-related complications, such as caudal migration and type Ia endoleaks, indicating the need for reintervention. Managing failed EVAS remains challenging and is an ongoing topic of discussion, especially for high-risk patients. We describe a 70-year-old female who initially underwent EVAS with a Nellix endograft and presented after 5 years of follow-up with caudal endograft migration and a type Ia endoleak. The patient was treated with endovascular implantation of an Altura stent-graft, a relatively new low-profile device with a similar double stent configuration. Device migration and endoleaks were undetectable at 12 months of follow-up, suggesting that the Altura might offer a safe and efficient approach in cases of Nellix proximal failure.

What we have learned from in-vitro studies of the chimney endovascular technique for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is not eligible for standard endovascular repair. These complex cases require alternative surgical approaches including the readily available chimney graft endovascular aneurysm repair (Ch-EVAR) or sealing (Ch-EVAS). The optimal configuration for Ch-EVAR or Ch-EVAS is important for success but not yet known.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to analyze current data of the outcomes of in-vitro chimney graft treatment in complex AAA.

METHODS

A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted including studies reporting on gutter size, main graft compression, and chimney graft compression in in-vitro configurations.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 285 articles. 11 studies considering 219 individual tests could be included. Gutter size was comparable between Ch-EVAR and Ch-EVAS configurations. In Ch-EVAR set-ups, the deployed BECG were Advanta V12, VIABAHN®, and BeGraft. One type of SECG was used: VIABAHN®. The four types of main grafts (MG) deployed were: Endurant™ I/II; EXCLUDER Conformable AAA Endoprosthesis and AAA Endoprosthesis, and AFX™ Endovascular AAA Delivery System. In the EVAS-configurations, the Nellix® EVAS system was deployed. In general, SECG presented smaller gutters with higher chimney graft compression. 30% main grafts oversizing seems to give the smallest gutters without high risk of infolding of MG. Oversizing, EndoAnchors, and secondary endobag filling (in Ch-EVAS) reduced gutter sizes. CG ballooning during the entire polymer injection in Ch-EVAS prevented CG compression.

CONCLUSION

In-vitro investigations provide insight in optimal Ch-EVAR and Ch-EVAS configurations for simulated complex AAA repair. The findings above might aid physicians in their planning to potential CG set-ups and can be used in future research to refine the most optimal configuration for chimney graft technique in complex AAA.

Combining Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing with Chimney Grafts - 5 Year Follow-Up after 47 Procedures

BACKGROUND

To evaluate longer-term results of a cohort treated with primary chimney endovascular aneurysm sealing (ChEVAS) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms or secondary ChEVAS after failed endovascular aneurysm repair/endovascular aneurysm sealing.

METHODS

A single-center study was conducted of 47 consecutive patients (mean age 72 ± 8 years, range 50-91; 38 men) treated with ChEVAS from February 2014 to November 2016 and followed through December 2021. The main outcome measures were all-cause mortality (ACM), aneurysm-related mortality, occurrence of secondary complications and conversion to open surgery. Data are presented as the median (interquartile range [IQR]) and absolute range.

RESULTS

35 patients received a primary ChEVAS (=group I) and 12 patients a secondary ChEVAS (=group II). Technical success was 97% (group I) and 92% (group II); 30-day mortality was 3% and 8%, respectively. The median proximal sealing zone length was 20.5 mm (IQR 16, 24; range 10-48) in group I and 26 mm (IQR 17.5, 30; range 8-45) in group II, respectively. During a median time of follow-up of 62 months (range 0-88), ACM amounted to 60% (group I) and 58% (group II); aneurysm mortality was 29% and 8%, respectively. An endoleak was seen in 57% (group I: 15 type Ia endoleaks, four isolated type Ib, and 1 endoleak type V) and 25% (group II: 1 endoleak type Ia, one type II, and 2 type V), aneurysm growth in 40% and 17%, migration in 40% and 17%, resulting in 20% and 25% conversions in group I and II, respectively. Overall a secondary intervention was performed in 51% (group I) and 25% (group II), respectively. The occurrence of complications did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. Neither the number of chimney grafts, nor the thrombus ratio significantly affected the occurrence of abovementioned complications.

CONCLUSIONS

While initially delivering a high technical success rate, ChEVAS fails to provide acceptable longer-term results both in primary and secondary ChEVAS, resulting in high rates of complications, secondary interventions and open conversions.

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.

Editor's Choice - Focused Update on Patients Treated with the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System from the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Clinical Practice Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

After alerts on EndoVascular Aneurysm Seal (EVAS) failure were raised, the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Clinical Practice Guidelines Writing Committee (WC) initiated a task force with the aim to provide guidance on surveillance and management of patients with implanted EVAS devices.

METHODS

Based on a scoping review of risk for late serious aortic-related adverse events in patients treated with EVAS for AAA, the ESVS AAA Guidelines WC agreed on recommendations graded according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) grading system.

RESULTS

EVAS has a very high incidence of late endograft migration resulting in proximal type 1 endoleak with risk of rupture, requiring open conversion with device explantation. The reported mortality rate for elective explantation varies between 0% and 14%, while acute conversion for rupture has a very dismal prognosis with a 67 - 75% mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that all patients in whom a Nellix device has been implanted should be identified, properly informed, and enrolled in enhanced surveillance. If device failure is detected, early elective device explantation should be considered in surgically fit patients.

Systematic Review of the Current In Vitro Experience of the Endovascular Treatment of Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms by Fenestrated and Parallel Endografting

OBJECTIVE

To identify and analyze the published in vitro benchtop experiments for the assessment of endovascular techniques used for the treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (jAAAs).

DATA SOURCES

Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out throughout March 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Two investigators independently performed title and abstract screening to reveal all benchtop testing evaluating the endovascular treatment of jAAA.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included, 8 evaluating fenestrated (FEVAR) and 11 parallel grafts (PGs). FEVAR studies used different custom testing apparatus (n=7) or 3D-printed models (n=1) to analyze dislodgement and migration resistance, misalignment consequences and causation, and bridging stents' radial force, flareability, fatigue, and fracture resistance. All PG studies used silicone-based models to analyze optimal oversizing, sealing length, gutter behavior, and possible reduction. Test evaluation in FEVAR in vitro testing was based on pullout force analysis (N=5), photo evaluation (n=1), fluoroscopy (n=1), X-rays (n=4), CT analysis (n=3), macro- and microscopic evaluation (n=4), water permeability (n=1), and fatigue simulator testing (n=1), while it was based on CT analysis in all PG studies adding ECG-gate in one study. The most frequently tested devices were Zenit (Cook) (n=7), Endurant (Medtronic) (n=5), and Excluder (Gore) (n=5) as main grafts, and Advanta V12 (n=14) as the bridging device.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review presents a broad analysis of the current in vitro methods evaluating the endovascular treatment of jAAA. Fundamental issues have been benchtop tested in both FEVAR and PGs. The analysis of the included studies allowed to recommend an optimal testing design. In vitro testing is a potential tool to further elucidate points of attention hard to investigate in vivo to finally enhance the endovascular treatment outcomes. Future in vitro studies are needed to evaluate the in vitro performance of all indistinctively used devices in the clinical practice.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Randomised Controlled Trials Supporting Implantable Devices for Vascular and Endovascular Procedures

OBJECTIVE

To identify implantable devices currently used for vascular and endovascular procedures, to ascertain how many have randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence available, and to assess the quality of that evidence.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO, clinical trial registries, and Cochrane databases.

REVIEW METHODS

A list of current devices used in both vascular and endovascular procedures was generated by searching conference proceedings, manufacturer catalogues, and websites. MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO, clinical trial registries, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception up to June 2020. The primary outcome was the availability of RCTs to support the use of a vascular implantable device. RCTs were then quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 116 current vascular implantable devices were identified. The systematic literature review identified 165 RCTs. Eighty-three of the RCTs (50.3%) applied to 33 of the 116 (28.4%) current implantable devices. When grouped by device type, eight of the 13 types (62%) had at least one RCT performed. There was a high risk of bias across the majority of the RCTs, with only nine (5.4%) deemed to be at low risk of bias. Only 22 (13.3%) RCTs had a clear safety outcome.

CONCLUSION

Sixty-two per cent of implantable device types for use in vascular and endovascular interventions had at least one RCT available to show equivalence to previous devices or safety. RCTs were generally of low quality and are decreasing in frequency with time. With medical implantable device failure being increasingly recognised as causing significant harm to patients worldwide, there is a clear need for a more robust implantable device regulation and approval systems.

The Dilemma after Sealing an Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm - Three Ways Out

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) was commercially introduced in 2013. The initial results of EVAS were positive, leading to its widespread use. The mid- and long-term reports showed greater than expected rates of migration, which led to a recall of the device. In the present article, we describe our experience in managing type Ia endoleaks and migration occurring with the Nellix system in three different ways: open repair with Nellix explantation, Nellix-in-Nellix application (NINA technique), and the use of the multibranched Colt device originally dedicated to the treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February 2014 to June 2021, we performed 20 procedures for failed EVAS or ChEVAS (migration, type Ia endoleak, secondary aneurysm rupture). All patients treated for EVAS failure were male, aged 65 - 79.

RESULTS

Seven Nellix explantations were performed. Three patients were admitted to our hospital with ruptured aneurysms that occurred 3 weeks to 4 years (mean 124 weeks) after EVAS, and another four with type Ia endoleak. In all but one case, removal of the Nellix system was easy. In two patients, tube grafts were implanted and in the remaining five cases, bifurcated grafts were implanted. In four patients, graft legs were anastomosed with the internal iliac arteries. One patient with secondary aneurysm rupture died from multiorgan failure on the 4th postoperative day. In two cases, transient renal failure was noticed in the perioperative period. All patients were admitted to the intensive care unit for 1 to 4 days (mean 2 days). The mean hospital stay was 9 days. All patients stayed in follow-up (3 - 56 months), but no other complications occurred. Eight patients were treated with the NINA technique: five for distal migration of the Nellix and three for failed ChEVAS. Four patients had a NINA procedure performed with three chimneys, three with two and one with one chimney. In one case, two iliac limbs were implanted to avoid kinking of the external iliac arteries. The median hospitalization time after the procedure was 9 days (range 3 - 12). Four patients developed transient acute renal insufficiency in the perioperative period. The follow-up ranged between 4 and 72 months. In one patient, deterioration of preexisting chronic renal insufficiency developed 5 months after the procedure, but dialysis was not required. One patient died from exacerbation of heart failure 7 months after the NINA procedure. The Colt device was implanted in five patients for the treatment of distal migration with type Ia endoleaks. None of the patients developed any signs of spinal cord ischemia. All patients were admitted to the intensive care unit for 1 or 2 days. In two cases, transient acute renal failure was noticed in the perioperative period. The mean hospital stay was 9 days. All patients remained in follow-up (6 - 22 months). In one case, the occlusion of the celiac trunk branch was found in contrast computed tomography 1 month after implantation of the Colt device, but without any symptoms. No other complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Normal strategies for the management of complications for late failure of EVAR, including stent-graft extensions, are not suitable after EVAS; therefore, alternatives are necessary. Conversion to open repair carries an extensive burden on the patient, so it is not recommended for patients with high surgical risk. The use of a Nellix-in-Nellix application to treat late failure of EVAS is not within the instructions for use but could be an effective strategy for a type Ia endoleak with or without migration. The use of this technique has been extremely limited since the Nellix system was recalled from the market. The use of the Colt multibranched device may be an alternative option, but due to the small number of patients, this method needs further evaluation.

Systematic Review on the Mid-Term Outcomes of Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing in Comparison to Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

INTRODUCTION

The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) system has been a topic of discussion. Early results were promising but did not deliver on the long-term and the device has been recalled from the market. This study compares literature for EVAS and conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

A systematic review and analysis was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched and identified the eligible studies. Proportion rates for the outcomes of interest were extracted. Subgroup analyses were performed for EVAS and EVAR.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included (EVAS n = 4, EVAR n = 8) including 10,255 patients (EVAS n = 784, EVAR n = 9441). The longest duration of follow-up was 3.4 years for EVAS and 5.0 years for EVAR studies. Throughout follow-up the overall all-cause mortality rates were 6% for EVAS and 13% for EVAR, and endoleak of any type was described in 10% of EVAS and 17% of EVAR patients. The migration rate >10 mm was 8% for EVAS and 0% for EVAR and aneurysm growth >5 mm was found in 11% of EVAS and 3% of EVAR cases. Total reintervention rate was 13% for EVAS and 7% for EVAR patients. For all analyzed outcome parameters heterogeneity was >50%.

CONCLUSION

There is a tendency toward lower mortality and overall endoleak rates for EVAS compared to EVAR but with a higher rate of migration, aneurysm growth, and reintervention. Despite lower overall endoleak rates there was a tendency toward less type II and more type I endoleaks after EVAS compared to EVAR. Substantial heterogeneity however limits robust statistical analyses, and is probably caused by significant instructions for use breach in EVAS-treated patients. We call for more high-quality and long-term follow-up studies on both EVAS and EVAR in order to confirm the trends found in this study.

The Polymer-Based Technology in the Endovascular Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a dilatation of the abdominal aorta that progressively grows until it ruptures. Treatment is typically recommended when the diameter is more than 5 cm. The EVAR (Endovascular aneurysm repair) is a minimally invasive procedure that involves the placement of an expandable stent graft within the aorta to treat aortic disease without operating directly on the aorta. For years, stent grafts' essential design was based on metallic stent frames to support the fabric. More recently, a polymer-based technology has been proposed as an alternative method to seal AAA. This review underlines the two platforms that are based on a polymer technology: (1) the polymer-filled endobags, also known as Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) with Nellix stent graft; and (2) the O-ring EVAR polymer-based proximal neck sealing device, also known as an Ovation stent graft. Polymer characteristics for this particular aim, clinical applications, and durability results are hereby summarized and commented critically. The technique of inflating endobags filled with polymer to exclude the aneurysmal sac was not successful due to the lack of an adequate proximal fixation. The platform that used polymer to create a circumferential sealing of the aneurysmal neck has proven safe and effective.

Morphological applicability of currently available stent grafts in the endovascular repair of asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm in East-Central European patients

Introduction

Currently, there is a wide range of commercially available devices for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) that differ in terms of both anatomical requirements and the technology and technique of deployment.

Aim

To assess the applicability of currently commercially available devices for EVAR in the treatment of an asymptomatic abdominal aneurysm (AAA).

Material and methods

The study group included 100 patients with infrarenal AAA with a maximum diameter ≥ 50 mm, qualified for invasive treatment at the University Hospital in 2013–2014. The aortoiliac morphological characteristics of the AAA were evaluated on preoperative computed tomography angiograms using the OsiriX DICOM viewer in the 3D-MPR mode. The morphological applicability of 14 types of CE-marked and FDA-approved stent grafts was determined based on their instructions for use (IFU).

Results

EVAR was feasible with at least one of the analysed devices in 68% of patients. The morphological applicability was as follows: Excluder Conformable (65%), Ovation iX (51%), Endurant II (47%), Treo (45%), Excluder C3 (45%), AFX 2 (45%), Incraft (44%), E-tegra (44%), Zenith Alfa (41%), Zenith Flex (40%), Anaconda (39%) Aorfix (37%), Altura (34%), and E-vita (20%). The differences in the stent graft applicability were statistically significant (p < 0.001). A wide diameter of the common iliac artery, angulated proximal neck, and diameter of proximal neck out of range constituted the most frequent causes of EVAR inapplicability.

Conclusions

The IFU-based applicability of currently available AAA stent graft systems differs significantly. Despite the constant evolution of EVAR technology, at least 32% of AAA will require a different therapeutic approach.

Management of Nellix migration and type Ia endoleak from proximal endovascular aneurysm sealing relining to late open conversion

BACKGROUND

Despite promising early results, mid-term failures of the Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) system (Endologix Inc, Irvine, Calif) have been reported at higher than expected rates. The management of proximal endoleaks and migration differs from those after conventional endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) owing to the peculiar design of the Nellix device. In the present study, we report a monocentric experience in the management of EVAS complications using various techniques. We also performed a comprehensive review of the relevant literature on both open surgical and endovascular management of proximal failure of EVAS from the MEDLINE database.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the reinterventions for type Ia endoleak and migration after elective infrarenal EVAS at our institution. We collected preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up data. Open and endovascular techniques are described. Overall survival, aortic-related mortality, and the technical success rate (rate of exclusion of endoleaks) with endovascular techniques were the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

We performed 101 infrarenal elective EVAS procedures from 2013 to 2018. Of the 101 patients, 20 (19.8%) had required reintervention for proximal sealing failure. The indications were type Ia (Is2, Is3) endoleak, migration >5 mm, sac expansion >5 mm, and secondary rupture. Of the 20 patients, 6 (30%) were treated with endovascular techniques-2 with a chimney Nellix-in-Nellix application and 4 with proximal relining with a covered stent. The remaining 14 patients (70%) were treated with late open conversion (OC). The average time from EVAS to reintervention was 36.1 months (range, 3-65 months). Six patients (30%) had undergone OC in an emergent setting because of secondary rupture. The technical success rate for the patients treated with endovascular reinterventions was 100%. The 30-day mortality was 20% (4 of 20), all emergent cases (four of six emergent repairs; 67%). The overall survival for the 20 patients was 75% (n = 15) at a mean follow-up of 15.1 months (range, 2-47 months). One patient had died after 7 months of non-aortic-related causes.

CONCLUSIONS

The high reintervention rate of the Nellix graft mandates careful evaluation for its further use with the revised instructions for use, and it should not be used off-label. OC remains the strategy of choice when managing Nellix proximal sealing failures in fit patients. Chimney Nellix-in-Nellix application and transcatheter embolization are feasible alternative techniques. Proximal relining also appears to be an effective alternative to more complex interventions, although it requires further studies for validation.

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.

Prospective, Randomised Two Centre Trial of Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm With or Without Sac Embolisation

OBJECTIVE

The benefit of aneurysm sac coil embolisation (ASCE) during endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains unclear. This prospective randomised two centre study (SCOPE 1: Sac COil embolisation for Prevention of Endoleak) compared the outcomes of standard EVAR in patients with AAA at high risk of type II endoleak (EL with EVAR with ASCE during the period 2014-2019.

METHODS

Patients at high risk of type II EL were randomised to standard EVAR (group A) or EVAR with coil ASCE (group B). The primary endpoint was the rate of all types of EL during follow up. Secondary endpoints included freedom from type II EL related re-interventions, and aneurysm sac diameter and volume variation at two year follow up. Adverse events included type II EL and re-interventions. CTA and Duplex ultrasound scans were scheduled at 30 days, six months, one year, and two years after surgery.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were enrolled, 47 in each group. There were no intra-operative complications. At M1, 16/47 early type II EL occurred (34%) in group A vs. 2/47 (4.3%) in group B (p < .001). At M6, 15/36 type II EL (41.7%) occurred in group A vs. 2/39 (4.26%) in group B (p < .001). At M12, 15/37 type II El (40.5%) occurred in group A vs. 5/35 (14.3%) in group B (p = .018). At 24 months, 8/32 type 2 El (25%) occurred in group A vs. 3/29 (6.5%) in group B (p = .19). Kaplan-Meier curves of survival free from EL and re-interventions were significantly in favour of group B (p < .001). Aneurysm sac volume decreased significantly in group B compared with group A at M6 (p = .081), at M12 (p = .004), and M24 (p = .001).

CONCLUSION

For selected patients at risk of EL, ASCE seems effective in preventing EL at one, six, and at 12 months. However, the difference was not statistically significant at 24 months. ASCE decreases the re-intervention rate two years after EVAR. A significantly faster aneurysm volume shrinkage was observed at one and two years following surgery. (SCOPE 1 trial: NCT01878240).

Progressive Device Failure at Long Term Follow Up of the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System

OBJECTIVE

High rates of midterm failure of the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System resulted in device withdrawal from the UK market. The study aim was to report long term Nellix EVAS outcomes and management of a failing device.

METHODS

A retrospective review of EVAS procedures at a tertiary unit was performed. Device failure was defined as a triad of stent migration, stent separation, and secondary sac expansion, or any intervention for type 1 endoleak, device rupture, or explant.

RESULTS

161 (male n = 140, female n = 21) patients with a median follow up of 6.0 (IQR 5.0-6.6) years were included. Freedom from all cause mortality estimate at six years was 41.5%. There were 70 (43.5%) device failures with a freedom from device failure estimate at six years of 32.3%. Failure was the result of sac expansion (n = 41), caudal stent migration (n = 36), stent separation (n = 26), and secondary AAA rupture (n = 15). A substantial number of type 1 endoleaks was present (1a n = 33, 1b n = 11), but the type 2 endoleak rate was low at 3.7%. Some 36 (22.4%) patients required re-intervention. Twenty-one patients underwent explant with no 30 day deaths. Six patients underwent Nellix-in-Nellix application (NINA) with one early death from bowel ischaemia and one patient who died later from non-aneurysm related cause. Two NINA patients have ongoing sac expansion and two have had thrombosis of a Nellix limb or visceral stent. Proximal embolisation was only successful in one of six cases.

CONCLUSION

The long term failure rate of Nellix EVAS is high. All patients with a device must be informed and be enrolled in enhanced surveillance. EVAS explant is an acceptable technique with favourable outcomes. Management by open explant, if the patient is fit, should be considered early and offered to those with device failure.

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.

Open Conversion After Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing: Technical Features and Clinical Outcomes in 44 Patients

Purpose

To evaluate the technical features and clinical results after open conversion for complications following endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS).

Materials and Methods

From July 2013 to February 2020, 44 patients (mean age 72±8 years; 36 men) underwent an open conversion due to EVAS complications in a single center. Data were collected on patient characteristics, reasons for conversion, characteristics and duration of the procedure, condition of the polymer, blood loss, time in the intensive care unit (ICU), and intra/postoperative complications. The main outcome measure was mortality at 30 days and in follow-up. Data are presented as the median (IQR) and absolute range.

Results

On average, the open conversion took place 3 years after the initial EVAS implantation [median 37 months (IQR 23, 50); range 0–64]. Most patients were converted due migration (82%), aneurysm growth (77%), and/or endoleak (75%), with 21 patients (48%) having all 3 events. Less frequent diagnoses were aneurysm rupture (n=7), aortic infection (n=3), technical failure during implantation (n=2), and graft thrombosis (n=1). The majority of patients (n=26) were asymptomatic and converted electively, but 9 were operated on urgently and 9 emergently (7 late rupture and 2 due to technical failure). The median procedure duration was 178 minutes (IQR 149, 223; range 87–417), the median blood loss was 1100 mL (IQR 600, 2600; range 300–5000). Polymer degradation was mentioned in the operative reports of 18 cases (41%). Patients stayed a median of 3 days (IQR 2, 7; range 1–35) in the ICU, while the median length of stay in the hospital was 14 days (IQR 10, 20; range 0–93). The 30-day mortality was 23% (n=10). During a median follow-up of 3 months (IQR 0, 11; range 0–38), no additional deaths occurred, but 12 patients suffered from an adverse event. There were 3 cases of wound dehiscence after laparotomy, 2 cases of leg ischemia, 2 cases of renal failure, and individual cases of urinary obstruction, urinoma, paralytic ileus, gastrointestinal bleeding, and postoperative delirium. A non-elective setting was associated with a significantly increased mortality of 33% in urgent cases and 56% in emergent cases (p=0.007). Based on these results an algorithm for the management of EVAS complications was developed.

Conclusion

The significantly increased mortality associated with nonelective conversions highlights the need for active surveillance. The presented algorithm offers a structured tool to avoid emergency conversions.

Lack of durability after transarterial ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer-embolization of type II endoleak following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Background: Type II endoleak (T2EL) after endovascular aortic repair is associated with AAA sac enlargements in up to 25%, reduction of attachment zones and rarely with aortic rupture. Indications for therapy and efficacy of interventions of T2EL are not clearly established. Transarterial embolization with application of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer has been described with varying outcomes. Aim of this study is to evaluate durability of Onyx^TM embolization (OE) in T2EL in a consecutive series at a single tertiary vascular center. Patients and methods: Demographic data, technical success, pre- and postoperative aneurysm growth, morbidity, mortality and reintervention rates during hospital stay as well as in follow up were recorded in patients treated with OE for T2EL between 01/2015 and 12/2017. The primary endpoint was defined as persistence or reoccurrence of T2EL (durability of OE). Results: In total 15 patients (78 ± 6 years, 13 men) were treated with OE because of sac enlargement (average growth of 12 ± 8%, n = 12), persistent bleeding after AAA rupture (n = 2) or persistent T2EL with stable but large aneurysm diameter (n = 1). Mean length of stay was 8 ± 11 days. Technical success was 93.3% (n = 14). Inhospital-morbidity was 26.7%, in-hospital- and 1-year-mortality rate were 6.6% (n = 1) and 20.0% (n = 3). T2EL persisted in 20.0% (n = 3) despite of OE. Re-EL-II occurred after 40 (30-114) days in 33.3% (n = 5). Reintervention rate was 13.3% (n = 2, at day 48 and 319). Altogether clinical success with stable aneurysm diameter was achieved in 80.0% (n = 12), but durable elimination of EL was only achieved in 46.7% of patients (n = 7). Conclusions: OE is technically possible in more than 90% of patients but might be associated with severe complications. Durability of this treatment is low, since T2EL persist or reoccur in more than 50% of all patients. OE of T2EL should be reserved for few selected cases.

Mid-Term Results of Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing in the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm With Unfavorable Morphology

PURPOSE

To report mid-term results of endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) deemed unsuitable for a standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of 42 patients with EVAR-unfavorable anatomy treated by EVAS combined with chimney grafts in case of the proximal AAA neck shorter than 5 mm was analyzed. Early outcomes included final angiographic result, intra- and early post-operative deaths, and complications. Mid-term outcomes included all-cause mortality (ACM), aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), patency of the stents, occurrence of endoleaks, serious complications and graft failures defined as the AAA growth of more than 5 mm, type I endoleak, occlusion of the stent-graft or chimney graft, aorto-duodenal fistula, or aneurysm rupture.

RESULTS

The procedure was completed in all patients. Twenty-eight chimney grafts were implanted in 19 patients. Patients were followed for a median of 24 months (range 12-34 months). There were 2 intraoperative ruptures and 1 patient died in an early postoperative period. The cumulative ACM was 15, 21, and 36% at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, and the cumulative ARM was 8, 11, and 27% at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Three out of 5 aneurysm-related deaths were due to a secondary aorto-duodenal fistula. The cumulative incidence of graft failure was 20, 27, and 42% at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. The cumulative incidence of an endoleak was 5, 9, and 23% at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. The graft failure increased significantly both ACM (p = .012) and ARM (p = .00003). The implantation of chimney grafts at the initial procedure increased ARM significantly (p = .008). The presence of an endoleak did not have any significant influence on ACM and ARM.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with EVAS for AAAs with EVAR-unfavorable anatomy, especially those with chimney grafts, exhibit a high risk of graft failure and subsequent death.

Current status on aortic endografts

Endovascular treatment has become widespread to treat aneurysmal disease, especially located in the aorta. The modern era of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair started between 1986 and 1991, and in the last 30 years, Endovascular Treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms evolved both due to the development of new materials and devices and the increasing appeal and effectiveness of the endovascular therapy itself. Vascular surgeons are using nowadays different solutions of Endovascular Treatment to treat all the expressions of aortic pathology (aneurysms, dissections and trauma) both in the acute and elective setting. Despite its use in every location of the aorta (the ascending aorta, the aortic arch, the thoracic aorta, thoraco-abdominal aorta, pararenal, iuxtarenal and infrarenal aortic aneurysms and iliac aneurysms), its safety and efficiency, endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysms presents some drawbacks: despite a lower short-term morbi-mortality, reinterventions and long-term patency are higher compared to open repair. In this review, we detail the most used types of endografts according to location, their performances and durability for each device. We conclude by discussing options to overcome ET limitations. Therefore, an obvious question arises: what we need in the future? What can the technological progress gives to physicians to further improve this new way of treating aorta?

Migration After Endovasclar Aneurysm Sealing in Conjunction With Chimney Grafts

Purpose

To assess the incidence of migration after endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) in conjunction with chimney grafts (chEVAS) for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

Materials and Methods

A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted of 31 patients (mean age 75.7 years; 27 men) treated for juxtarenal AAA between April 2013 and December 2018 at single centers in New Zealand and the Netherlands. The majority of patients received >1 chimney graft (13 single, 13 double, and 5 triple) during chEVAS. Six patients had only the first postoperative scan, so the migration analysis was based on 25 patients.

Results

Median seal length assessed on the first postoperative computed tomography scan was 36.5 mm. The assisted technical success rate was 93.5% with 2 technical failures. Median time to final imaging follow-up was 17 months in 25 patients. At the latest follow-up, there were no cases of caudal migration >10 mm. Freedom from caudal movement of 5 to 9 mm was estimated as 86.1% at 1 year and 73.9% at 2 years; freedom from clinically relevant migration (movement requiring reintervention) was 100% at both time intervals. However, at 3 years there were 2 cases of caudal movement of 5 to 9 mm and a type Ia endoleak warranting reintervention. No correlation between migration and aneurysm growth (p=0.851), endoleak (p=0.562), or the number of chimney grafts (p=0.728) was found. During follow-up, 2 patients (7%) had aneurysm rupture and 10 (33%) had reinterventions. Eight patients (27%) died; 2 were aneurysm-related (7%) and due to the consequences of a reintervention.

Conclusion

In the 2 years following chEVAS, there was no caudal migration >10 mm, but nearly a quarter of patients had caudal movement of 5 to 9 mm. A trend was observed toward ongoing migration that required intervention at 3-year follow-up. chEVAS is technically challenging and should be considered only for patients with no viable alternative treatment option.

The Safety of EVAS Surgical Conversion in a Comparative Monocentric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) was a widespread technology to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, the particular morphology and structure of this endoprosthesis predisposed to proximal sealing defects with a high rate of reintervention or conversion to open surgery treatments. The purpose of this article is to report our experience on late open conversion of Nellix device, compared with the previous reported experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between September 2013 and February 2020, eight late open surgical conversions for endoleak (EL) were performed in our center: four of these were for EVAR. Four of these were EVAS devices required explantation and were included in the study. All excisions of infected abdominal aortic endograft were excluded.

RESULTS

All patients were treated within the original instructions for use. Aorto-bi-iliac reconstruction was performed with a bifurcated Dacron graft in all the four cases. At 12 months Doppler ultrasonography follow-up, good results at short term with preserved primary patency and freedom of re-intervention in three cases were reported. Only one patient died 16 days after the procedure. Nevertheless, the endoprosthetic structure allows in three of our cases to clamp down the renal level, with a decrease of the time of lower limbs ischemia and greater safety of the open surgery repair procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The EVAS conversion is common, and a closer follow-up is required. The most recurrent open surgery indication is its migration and the EL type 1. The procedure is influenced by multiple comorbidities; emergency graft excision appears to increase morbidity and mortality, compared with elective surgical setting.

Late failure of a Nellix endoprosthesis treated with the t-Branch off-the-shelf multibranched stent graft

A 66-year-old man arrived at our emergency department 3 years after an endovascular aneurysm sealing procedure performed at another center. Computed tomography angiography showed distal migration of a Nellix endoprosthesis (Endologix, Irvine, Calif) and a posterior contained rupture. The left kidney was excluded by an occluded iliac-left renal bypass, which was performed at the time of the Nellix implantation because of unintended coverage. A t-Branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) was implanted in an emergency, but the delivery caused disruption of the Nellix limb, requiring relining. Target vessels were bridged with VBX stents (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz). The postoperative course was uneventful except for renal function impairment that was restored 2 weeks later.