One-year aneurysm-sac dynamics are associated with reinterventions and rupture following infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair

One-year follow-up after active aortic aneurysm sac treatment with shape memory polymer devices during endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and efficacy of treating abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sacs with polyurethane shape memory polymer (SMP) devices during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), using a technique to fully treat the target lumen after endograft placement (aortic flow volume minus the endograft volume). SMP devices self-expand in the sac to form a porous scaffold that supports thrombosis throughout its structure.

METHODS

Two identical prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies were conducted in New Zealand and the Netherlands. The study population was adult candidates for elective EVAR of an infrarenal AAA (diameter of ≥55 mm in men and ≥50 mm in women). Key exclusion criteria were an inability to adequately seal a common iliac artery aneurysm, patent sac feeding vessels of >4 mm, and a target lumen volume of <20 mL or >135 mL. Target lumen volumes were estimated by subtracting endograft volumes from preprocedural imaging-based flow lumen volumes. SMP devices were delivered immediately after endograft deployment via a 6F sheath jailed in a bowed position in the sac. The primary efficacy end point was technical success, defined as filling the actual target lumen volume with fully expanded SMP at the completion of the procedure. Secondary efficacy outcome measures during follow-up were the change in sac volume and diameter, rate of type II endoleak and type I or III endoleaks, and the rate of open repair and related reinterventions, with data collection at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year (to date). Baseline sac volumes and diameters for change in sac size analyses were determined from 30-day imaging studies. Baseline and follow-up volumes were normalized by subtraction of the endograft volume.

RESULTS

Of 34 patients treated with SMP devices and followed per protocol, 33 patients were evaluable at 1 year. Preprocedural aneurysm volume was 181.4 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 150.7-212.1 mL) and preprocedural aneurysm diameter was 60.8 mm (95% CI, 57.8-63.9 mm). The target lumen volume was 56.3 mL (95% CI, 46.9-65.8 mL). Technical success was 100% and the ratio of SMP fully expanded volume to estimated target lumen volume was 1.4 ± 0.3. Baseline normalized sac volume and diameter were 140.7 mL (95% CI, 126.6-154.9 mL) and 61.0 mm (95% CI, 59.7-62.3 mm). The adjusted mean percentage change in normalized volume at 1 year was -28.8% (95% CI, -35.3 to -22.3%; P < .001). The adjusted mean change in sac diameter at 1 year was -5.9 mm (95% CI, -7.5 to -4.4 mm; P < .001). At 1 year, 81.8% of patients (95% CI, 64.5%-93.0%) achieved a ≥10% decrease in normalized volume and 57.6% of patients (95% CI, 39.2%-74.5%) achieved a ≥5 mm decrease in diameter. No device- or study procedure-related major adverse events occurred through 1 year after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of AAA sacs with SMP devices during EVAR resulted in significant sac volume and diameter regression at 1 year with an acceptable safety profile in this prospective study.

Long Term Outcomes of the Gore Excluder Low Permeability Endoprosthesis for the Treatment of Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the long term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair using the Gore Excluder Low Permeability (LP) endoprosthesis across high volume Dutch hospitals.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients treated with the Excluder LP for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in four hospitals between 2004 and 2017. Primary outcomes were overall survival, freedom from re-interventions (overall, inside and outside instructions for use, IFU), and AAA sac dynamics: growth (> 5 mm), stabilisation, and regression (< 5 mm). Secondary outcomes were technical success (device deployment), procedural parameters, and re-interventions. Follow up visits were extracted from patient files, with imaging assessed for complications and AAA diameter.

RESULTS

Five hundred and fourteen patients were enrolled, with a median (IQR) follow up of 5.0 (2.9, 6.9) years. Survival rates were 94.0% at one year, 73.0% at five years, and 37.0% at 10 years, with freedom from re-interventions of 89.0%, 79.0%, and 71.0%, respectively. 37.9% were treated outside IFU, leading to significantly more re-interventions over 10 years compared with those treated inside IFU (36.0% vs. 25.0%, respectively; p = .044). The aneurysm sac regressed by 53.5% at one year, 65.8% at five years, and 77.8% at 10 years, and grew by 9.8%, 14.3%, and 22.2%, respectively. Patients with one year sac growth had significantly worse survival (p = .047). Seven patients (1.4%) had a ruptured aneurysm during follow up. Over 15 years, type 1a endoleak occurred in 5.3%, type 1b in 3.1%, type 3 in 1.9%, type 4 in 0.2%, and type 2 in 35.6% of patients.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre study of real world endovascular aneurysm repair data using the Gore Excluder LP endoprosthesis demonstrated robust long term survival and re-intervention rates, despite 37.9% of patients being treated outside IFU, with type 4 endoleak being rare. Treatment outside IFU significantly increased re-intervention rates and one year sac growth was associated with statistically significantly worse survival.