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

Implantable Pressure-Sensing Devices for Monitoring Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in Post-Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Over the past two decades, there has been extensive research into surveillance methods for the post-endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms, highlighting the importance of these technologies in supplementing or even replacing conventional image-screening modalities. This review aims to provide an overview of the current status of alternative surveillance solutions for endovascular aneurysm repair, while also identifying potential aneurysm features that could be used to develop novel monitoring technologies. It offers a comprehensive review of these recent clinical advances, comparing new and standard clinical practices. After introducing the clinical understanding of abdominal aortic aneurysms and exploring current treatment procedures, the paper discusses the current surveillance methods for endovascular repair, contrasting them with recent pressure-sensing technologies. The literature on three commercial pressure-sensing devices for post-endovascular repair surveillance is analyzed. Various pre-clinical and clinical studies assessing the safety and efficacy of these devices are reviewed, providing a comparative summary of their outcomes. The review of the results from pre-clinical and clinical studies suggests a consistent trend of decreased blood pressure in the excluded aneurysm sac post-repair. However, despite successful pressure readings from the aneurysm sac, no strong link has been established to translate these measurements into the presence or absence of endoleaks. Furthermore, the results do not allow for a conclusive determination of ongoing aneurysm sac growth. Consequently, a strong clinical need persists for monitoring endoleaks and aneurysm growth following endovascular repair.

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.

Navigating Challenges in the Endovascular Treatment of Asymptomatic Aortoiliac Aneurysms: A 10-Year Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Treating an abdominal aortoiliac aneurysm (AAIA) with endovascular methods can be challenging when the internal iliac artery (IIA) is involved. Embolizing the IIA and extending the limb to the external iliac artery (IIAE + EE) to prevent a type 2 endoleak may lead to pelvic ischemic complications. To avoid these complications, strategies that preserve the IIA, such as the bell-bottom technique (BBT) and the iliac branch device (IBD), have been proposed. This study aims to compare the outcomes of these three endovascular approaches for AAIA.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2019, 174 patients with asymptomatic AAIA were enrolled in this retrospective analysis. They were divided into two groups: 81 patients underwent non-IIAE procedures, and 93 patients underwent IIAE procedures. The iliac limb study group consisted of 106 limbs treated with the BBT, 113 limbs treated with the IIAE + EE, and 32 limbs treated with the IBD. The primary outcomes included the 30-day mortality rate and intraoperative limb complications. The secondary outcomes included postoperative pelvic ischemia, freedom from reintervention, and the overall 10-year survival rate.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the perioperative mortality rate between the non-IIAE group (0%) and the IIAE group (2.1%), p = 0.500. The intraoperative limb complications did not differ significantly between the BBT limbs (7.5%), the IIAE + EE limbs (3.5%), and the IBD limbs (3.1%) groups, p = 0.349. The incidence of buttock claudication was significantly greater in the bilateral IIAE + EE group compared to the unilateral IIAE + EE and non-IIAE groups (25%, 11%, and 2.5%, p-value < 0.004), and was similar to the incidence of buttock rest pain with skin necrosis (15%, 0%, and 0%, p < 0.001). During the 10-year follow-up, the BBT limbs group had a significantly lower rate of iliac limb reintervention free time than the IIAE + EE limbs and the IBD limbs groups (88.7%, 98.2%, and 93.8%, p = 0.016). There was no significant difference in the overall 10-year survival rate between the non-IIAE and IIAE groups (51.4% vs. 55.9%, p = 0.703).

CONCLUSIONS

The early and late mortality rates were similar between the non-IIAE and IIAE groups. Preserving the IIA is recommended to avoid pelvic ischemic complications. Considering the higher rate of reintervention in the BBT group, the IBD strategy may be preferred for AAIA.

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.