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

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.

Evaluation of Electrocardiogram-Gated Computed Tomography Angiography to Quantify Changes in Geometry and Dynamic Behavior during the Cardiac Cycle of the Nellix Endovascular Sealing System

Background

The Nellix endovascular sealing system (EVAS) was a unique concept with regard to its sealing concept that failed, related to high migration rates. We investigated the changes in aortoiliac morphology during the cardiac cycle before and after EVAS using electrocardiography (ECG)-gated CT.

Methods

Eight patients scheduled for EVAS were prospectively enrolled. ECG-gated CT scans were made pre- and postoperatively. Measurements were performed in the mid-systolic and mid-diastolic phases. Endpoints were changes in infrarenal aortoiliac morphology postoperatively compared to preoperatively and their changes in the cardiac cycle.

Results

Both pre- and postoperatively, there were no changes during the cardiac cycle. EVAS caused an increase in neck diameter and surface in both phases (p < 0.001). EVAS increased the luminal AAA volume (p < 0.001), with a decrease in thrombus volume (p < 0.001) in both phases and an increase in total volume (p < 0.001) in the systolic phase. During follow-up, one patient presented with >5 mm migration. There were no differences in the movements of this patient compared to the remaining patients.

Conclusion

The cardiac cycle had a very limited effect on the aortoiliac dynamics before and after EVAS and, therefore, there is probably not a role for ECG-gated CT in enhanced surveillance programs. EVAS itself has a significant impact on anatomy, particularly the neck diameter, length, and volumes of the AAA.

Mortality analysis of endovascular aneurysm sealing versus endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), using the Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system, has been associated with high reintervention and migration rates. However, prior reports have suggested that EVAS might be related to a lower all-cause mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In the present study, we examined the 5-year all-cause mortality trends after EVAS and EVAR.

METHODS

We compared the 333 EVAS patients in the EVAS-1 Nellix U.S. investigational device exemption trial with 16,497 infrarenal EVAR controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative, treated between 2014 and 2016, after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption trial (ie, hemodialysis, creatinine >2.0 mg/dL, rupture). As a secondary analysis, we stratified the patients by aneurysm diameter (<5.5 cm and ≥5.5 cm). We calculated propensity scores after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic characteristics and applied inverse probability weighting to compare the risk-adjusted long-term mortality using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

After weighting, the EVAS group had experienced similar 5-year mortality compared with the controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (EVAS vs EVAR, 18% vs 14%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.7; P = .70). The subgroup analysis demonstrated that for patients with an aneurysm diameter of <5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with higher 5-year mortality compared with EVAR (19% vs 11%; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7; P = .013). In patients with an aneurysm diameter of ≥5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years (2-year mortality: HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.62; P = .002). However, compared with EVAR, EVAS was associated with higher mortality between 2 and 5 years (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .005), with no mortality difference at 5 years (18% vs 17%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .46).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the overall population, EVAS was associated with similar 5-year mortality compared with EVAR. EVAS was associated with higher mortality for those with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm). For those with larger aneurysms (≥5.5 cm), EVAS was initially associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years, although this advantage was lost thereafter, with higher mortality after 2 years. Future studies are required to evaluate the specific causes of death and to elucidate the potential beneficial mechanism behind sac obliteration that leads to this potential initial survival benefit. This could help guide the development of future grafts with better proximal fixation and sealing that also incorporate sac obliteration.

A Case of Late Type Ia Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing Using the Nellix System: Proximal Extension with Triple Chimney and Gutter Endoleak Embolization

An 87-year-old man, who submitted to endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) on 2017, presented a type Ia endoleak 2 years later, with enlargement of the aneurysmal sac. We planned an endovascular procedure of correction consisting of a proximal extension through two covered stent grafts deployed into the previous Nellix stent grafts, with associated triple chimney. However, 3 months later, he had a further 5 mm aneurysmal sac enlargement. He was submitted to angiography with coil embolization of gutters, obtaining a successfully result. At 1 and 3 months, he is free from endoleak, with a stable aneurysmal diameter.

Innovative solutions for endovascular aneurysm sealing-delayed Nellix type 1a endoleak

A delayed Nellix (Endologix, Irvine, Calif) type 1a endoleak from endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is particularly challenging to treat owing to the restrictions and scarcity of the technical options available. We have described two viable endovascular solutions, with and without the availability of the Nellix endograft inventory. A Nellix-in-Nellix apparatus with multivisceral chimney, covered stent extensions and internal reinforcements can be used if Nellix endografts are available (patient 1). In the absence of Nellix endografts, we used a Viabahn-in-Nellix apparatus, also with multiple chimney stents, as an alternative and timely treatment for patient 2. Our patients remained well and free of endoleaks at 19 and 11 months after treatment.

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.

Difficult diagnosis and management of a complicated Nellix graft infection

An 81-year-old man, with a complex vascular surgical history, presents with sepsis from an infected Nellix stent-graft. He required an urgent laparotomy, explantation of the graft, and extra-anatomical repair. Although now widely used for this indication, the preoperative 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography was nondiagnostic for his stent-graft infection. We describe our management of a complicated Nellix graft infection and discuss the utility of positron emission tomography/computed tomography for stent-graft infections.

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.

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.

Nellix endovascular aneurysm-sealing system: a single-center experience and review of current evidence

Aims: We report the 6-year results of our use of the Nellix^® endovascular aneurysm sealing system. Materials & methods: This is a retrospective review of patients we treated from 2013 to 2019. The outcomes described include technical success rate, mortality, all procedure-related complications, reinterventions, open surgical conversion and secondary sac rupture. Results & conclusions: A total of 68 patients were treated. Mortality was 2.9%. Secondary interventions were carried out for distal embolization (3), stent occlusion (1), pseudoaneurysm (1) and endoleak (5). Open surgical conversion was required in 6.4% of cases. Medium- and long-term complications of EVAS occurred more frequently than expected. Because the durability of endovascular aneurysm sealing is questionable, strict postoperative surveillance of Nellix is crucial to identify features of 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.

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?

Current assessment and management of endoleaks after advanced EVAR: new devices, new endoleaks?

INTRODUCTION

In recent years there has been an increasing application of advanced EVAR techniques to tackle complex clinical and anatomical scenarios. In a bid to overcome the limitations of the traditional stent-grafts, newer EVAR endografts and techniques have been developed and introduced into clinical practice, permitting endovascular management of difficult infrarenal, juxta-renal and thoracoabdominal aneurysms for which previously there was no endovascular solution. As a consequence, we are now confronted with unique patterns of endoleak requiring customized clinical-radiological assessment and treatment. Despite the increasing body of evidence regarding new EVAR techniques and related endoleaks, current guidelines do not specifically address these issues.

OBJECTIVES

Our review aims to assess risk factors, development, and management strategies of these endoleaks, in the most recent infrarenal EVAR devices and in more complex fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) and Chimney EVAR (Ch-EVAR).

EXPERT OPINION

Most new devices have demonstrated types of endoleaks that need specific imaging and treatment, as in EVAS, FEVAR, and ChEVAR. Knowledge of specific stent-graft characteristics and the nature of endoleaks associated with the various procedures facilitates the application of relevant useful imaging. In addition, it should aid development of a customized and practically relevant approach to patient management during intervention and follow-up.

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.

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.

Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing is Associated with Higher Medium-Term Survival than Traditional EVAR

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Periprocedural risks are low, and cardiovascular events are the principle determinants of long-term survival. Recently, the concept of endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) has been introduced into clinical investigation. In previous cohort studies, EVAS has been associated with a lower all-cause mortality than expected despite device issues. We used a propensity weighted approach to investigate whether EVAS was associated with lower all-cause mortality after aneurysm repair.

METHODS

We compared 333 patients in the Nellix United States Investigational Device Exemption trial to 15,431 controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2016 after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption (hemodialysis, creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL, or rupture). We calculated propensity scores and applied inverse probability weighting to compare risk adjusted medium-term survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression.

RESULTS

After weighting, patients treated with the Nellix EVAS system experienced higher 3-year survival than controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (93% vs. 88%, respectively). This corresponded to a 41% lower risk of mortality for EVAS compared with EVAR (HR 0.59 [0.38-0.92], P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the association between EVAS and higher survival was strongest in the subgroup of patients with aneurysms over 5.5 cm (P for interaction < 0.001). In this subgroup, EVAS patients experienced half the rate of mortality as those patients treated with EVAR, with 3-year survival of 92% compared with 86% (HR 0.5 [0.3-0.9], P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this select group of patients, EVAS was associated with higher medium-term survival than traditional EVAR. Although issues with the device have recently surfaced, this exploratory analysis shows that the concept of sac sealing may hold promise. Further study is needed to confirm this finding and determine whether EVAS is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular events.

Evolving concepts and management of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair: where do we stand in 2019?

In recent years, there has been tremendous progress in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) techniques and devices. This process has seen a change in incidence, risk factors, and treatment of endoleaks as well as in follow-up protocols after EVAR. In particular, recent literature has highlighted new concepts in the evaluation and prevention/treatment of type I and II endoleak after standard EVAR. There is also recent evidence regarding new imaging protocols for follow-up after EVAR, which include magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. This comprehensive review aims to outline the most recent concepts on imaging follow-up, pathophysiology/risk factors, and management of endoleaks.

Options to achieve proximal sealing zone during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm and correlated classification

Since its first development, endovascular aortic aneurysmal repair (EVAR) has largely evolved, and several types of endografts are currently available including bifurcated grafts with supra or infra-renal fixation, fenestrated (FEVAR). Technical advances have led to propose EVAR in patients with challenging anatomy and the indications for using endografts mainly depend on patients’ vascular anatomical characteristics and on the instructions for use. Even if the minimal requirements for standard commercially available endografts have been defined, there is a lack of consensus to help surgeons to choose the most appropriate approach. Here, we propose a four-class abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) categorization based on the morphology and the length of the necks considered as landing zones as well as markers of potential evolution of the AAA. This pragmatic classification may help to clarify the decision-making process for selecting the most appropriate endovascular device to treat AAA in accordance with the anatomy and the foreseeable evolution and delayed complication risk to anticipate vascular outcome.

Editor's Choice - Mid-term Migration and Device Failure Following Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing with the Nellix Stent Graft System - a Single Centre Experience

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) with the Nellix stent graft system is a novel concept in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) that aims to reduce the prevalence of all endoleaks following endovascular repair. There are few data describing the longer-term durability of this approach. The aim was to report the longer-term outcomes following EVAS in a single centre.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all patients that underwent Nellix at Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation Trust. Factors that are described as device failure include secondary sac rupture, graft explantation, further surgical procedures for Type 1 endoleak, or major migration of the stent grafts with pressurisation of the aortic sac.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients have been treated with Nellix. The indications included primary AAA (n = 115), ruptured AAA (n = 4), salvage of other aortic grafts (n = 18), primary iliac aneurysm (n = 6), and chimney EVAS (ChEVAS) for pararenal AAA (n = 18). In total there have been 42 graft failures in patients treated with EVAS for primary AAA. The 4 year freedom from graft failure was 42% in patients treated for primary AAA. Failures mostly occurred more than 2 years post-Nellix implant. There were eight secondary sac ruptures (incidence 2.4 per 100 person years) and there have been 14 graft explants.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure of aneurysm sealing following treatment with Nellix has been more common than anticipated and can cause aortic rupture. Post-operative surveillance of Nellix stent grafts is crucial to identify features of failure.

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.

Stent Frame Movement Following Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing in the Abdominal Aorta

Purpose: To investigate the incidence and extent of stent frame movement after endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) in the abdominal aorta and its relationships to aneurysm growth and the instructions for use (IFU) of the Nellix endograft. Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted to review the clinical data and computed tomography (CT) images of 75 patients (mean age 76±7.6 years; 57 men) who underwent infrarenal EVAS and had a minimum 1-year follow-up. The first postoperative CT scan at 1 month and the subsequent scans were used to measure the distances between the proximal end of the stent frames and a reference visceral vessel using a previously validated technique. Device migration was based on the Society of Vascular Surgery definition of >10-mm downward movement of either Nellix stent frame in the proximal landing zone; a more conservative proximal displacement measure (downward movement ⩾4 mm) was also recorded. Patients were categorized according to adherence to the old (2013) or new (2016) Nellix IFU. Aneurysm diameter was measured for each scan; a change ⩾5 mm was deemed indicative of aneurysm growth. Results: Over a median follow-up of 24 months (range 12–48), proximal displacement ⩾4 mm occurred in 42 (56%) patients and migration >10 mm in 16 (21%), with similar incidences in the right and left stent frames. Proximal displacement was significantly more frequent among patients whose anatomy did not conform to any IFU (p=0.025). Presence of aneurysm growth ⩾5 mm was observed in 14 (19%) patients and was significantly associated with proximal displacement ⩾4 mm (p=0.03). Conclusion: Infrarenal EVAS may be complicated by proximal displacement and migration, particularly when performed outside the IFU. The definition of migration used for endovascular aneurysm repair may be inappropriate for EVAS; a new consensus on definition and measurement technique is necessary.

Anatomical Predictors of Endoleaks or Migration After Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing

Purpose: To identify preoperative anatomical aortic characteristics that predict seal failures after endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) and compare the incidence of events experienced by patients treated within vs outside the instructions for use (IFU). Methods: Of 355 patients treated with the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System (generation 3SQ+) at 3 high-volume centers from March 2013 to December 2015, 94 patients were excluded, leaving 261 patients (mean age 76±8 years; 229 men) for regression analysis. Of these, 83 (31.8%) suffered one or more of the following events: distal migration ⩾5 mm of one or both stent frames, any endoleak, and/or aneurysm growth >5 mm. Anatomical characteristics were determined on preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans. Patients were divided into 3 groups: treated within the original IFU (n=166), outside the original IFU (n=95), and within the 2016 revised IFU (n=46). Categorical data are presented as the median (interquartile range Q1, Q3). Results: Neck diameter was significantly larger in the any-event cohort vs the control cohort [23.7 mm (21.7, 26.3) vs 23.0 mm (20.9, 25.2) mm, p=0.022]. Neck length was significantly shorter in the any-event cohort [15.0 mm (10.0, 22.5) vs 19.0 mm (10.0, 21.8), p=0.006]. Maximum abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter and the ratio between the maximum AAA diameter and lumen diameter in the any-event group were significantly larger than the control group (p=0.041 and p=0.002, respectively). Regression analysis showed aortic neck diameter (p=0.006), neck length (p=0.001), and the diameter ratio (p=0.011) as significant predictors of any event. In the comparison of events to IFU status, 52 (31.3%) of 166 patients in the inside the original IFU group suffered an event compared to 13 (28.3%) of 46 patients inside the 2016 IFU group (p=0.690). Conclusion: Large neck diameter, short aortic neck length, and the ratio between the maximum AAA and lumen diameters are preoperative anatomical predictors of the occurrence of migration (⩾5 mm), any endoleak, and/or aneurysm growth (>5 mm) after EVAS. Even under the refined 2016 IFU, more than a quarter of patients suffered from an event. Improvements in the device seem to be necessary before this technique can be implemented on a large scale in endovascular AAA repair.

New Conception of Relining in the Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing Era: A Monocentric Case Series Study

Over 20 years from the first endovascular aortic repair, endoleaks still represent a common problem, even with newer endograft generation. Numerous procedures can be adopted to manage these complications; relining of the endoprosthesis is a rational technique to treat type III and IV endoleaks. The absence of dedicated materials for these procedures forces the vascular surgeon to perform complex hybrid or endovascular interventions. In this case report, we aimed to evaluate our relining experience using the Nellix device in 5 consecutive cases.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a localized dilatation of the infrarenal aorta. AAA is a multifactorial disease, and genetic and environmental factors play a part; smoking, male sex and a positive family history are the most important risk factors, and AAA is most common in men >65 years of age. AAA results from changes in the aortic wall structure, including thinning of the media and adventitia due to the loss of vascular smooth muscle cells and degradation of the extracellular matrix. If the mechanical stress of the blood pressure acting on the wall exceeds the wall strength, the AAA ruptures, causing life-threatening intra-abdominal haemorrhage - the mortality for patients with ruptured AAA is 65-85%. Although AAAs of any size can rupture, the risk of rupture increases with diameter. Intact AAAs are typically asymptomatic, and in settings where screening programmes with ultrasonography are not implemented, most cases are diagnosed incidentally. Modern functional imaging techniques (PET, CT and MRI) may help to assess rupture risk. Elective repair of AAA with open surgery or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) should be considered to prevent AAA rupture, although the morbidity and mortality associated with both techniques remain non-negligible.

Endovascular aneurysm sealing with the Nellix endograft in hemodynamically-unstable ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm with challenging anatomy

BACKGROUND

To assess immediate and midterm outcomes of hemodynamically-unstable patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) treated with the Nellix endovascular sealing system (EVAS).

METHODS

From June 2014 to June 2017, 21 hemodynamically-unstable rAAA patients with challenging anatomies were treated with EVAS. The mean AAA diameter and neck length measured 73±15 mm and 14±10 mm, respectively. All the patients presented an advance trauma life support (ATLS) hemorrhage class ≥1 confirming a compromised hemodynamic status. Primary endpoints include technical success, treatment success, primary safety and 30-day survival. Secondary endpoints include re-intervention rate and time free-from-reintervention.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 95% (N.=20/21); one patient was converted intraoperatively to open surgery due to ongoing hemorrhage. Seven re-interventions were performed within 30-days and one during the follow-up; treatment success rate of 67% and re-intervention rate of 33%. Early endoleaks were diagnosed in 5 patients (24%). Primary safety was 52%. After a mean follow-up of 11±10 months, survival rates were 81%, 62% and 57% at 1, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Time free-from-reintervention was 15±11 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency-EVAS (eEVAS) appeared feasible and useful, especially in hemodynamically-unstable patients with challenging anatomies. There are some limitations in this cohort study and larger, prospective and comparative studies are required to confirm eEVAS as part of an emergency treatment protocol for rAAA.

Influence of the Revised Nellix Instructions for Use on Outcomes After Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of the revised Nellix instructions for use (IFU) from 2016 on clinical outcomes and anatomic applicability by retrospectively applying them to a cohort treated with endovascular aneurysm sealing according to the original IFU 2013. Methods: A single-center study was conducted of 100 consecutive patients (mean age 72±8 years, range 46–91; 89 men) treated electively with standard bilateral EVAS from July 2013 to August 2015 and followed through December 2017. Procedures previously classified within and outside the original IFU from 2013 (75 and 25, respectively) were reclassified according to the revised IFU 2016 (34 and 66, respectively). Stepwise backward logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of specific anatomic features for the development of endoleak and/or migration. Results: The single most important morphologic feature disqualifying patients from being within IFU 2016 was a thrombus ratio >1.4 (36 of 41 reclassified patients). Overall technical success was 98% (100% within vs 97% outside IFU 2016, p=0.323) and 30-day mortality was 3% (0% within vs 5% outside IFU 2016, p=0.251). During a median follow-up of 31 months (range 0–53), overall mortality was 21% (15% within vs 24% outside IFU 2016, p=0.469); aneurysm-related mortality was 8% (3% within vs 11% outside IFU 2016, p=0.533). Twenty-six patients developed an endoleak (6 within vs 20 outside IFU 2016, p=0.172) and 23 had migration (4 within vs 19 outside IFU 2016, p=0.088). Both proximal neck length <10 mm and neck angulation >60° were positive predictors for the development of endoleak and/or migration. A reintervention was performed in 26 patients (7 within vs 19 outside IFU 2016, p=0.376). While a significant difference was found between the within vs outside IFU 2016 groups with regard to freedom from migration (p=0.026) and the composite freedom from endoleak and/or migration (p=0.021), there were no significant differences in survival (p=0.201) or freedom from reintervention (p=0.505), suggesting a limited effectiveness of the new IFU 2016. Conclusion: The IFU 2016 reduced the anatomic applicability to 34% from 75% for the original IFU 2013. The lack of significant intergroup differences in terms of survival and reinterventions suggests a limited effectiveness of the new IFU 2016.

Apposition and Positioning of the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System in the Infrarenal Aortic Neck

PURPOSE

To investigate the initial proximal position and seal of the Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) system in the aortic neck using a novel methodology.

METHODS

Forty-six consecutive patients who underwent elective EVAS for an abdominal aortic aneurysm were retrospectively selected and dichotomized into an early (n=23) and a late (n=23) group. The aortic neck morphology and aortic neck surface (ANS) were determined on preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans; the endograft position and nonapposition surface (NAS) were determined on the 1-month CT scans. The position of the proximal endobag boundary was measured by 2 experienced observers to analyze the interobserver variability for the EVAS NAS measurements. The shortest distance from the lowest renal artery to the endobag (shortest fabric distance) and the shortest distance from the endobag to the end of the infrarenal neck (shortest sealing distance) were determined. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data are presented as the median and interquartile range (IQR: Q3 - Q1).

RESULTS

There were no differences between the early and late EVAS groups regarding aortic neck morphology except for the neck calcification circumference [41° (IQR 33°) vs 87° (IQR 60°), respectively; p=0.043]. Perfect agreement was observed for the NAS (ICC 0.897, 95% CI 0.780 to 0.956). The NAS as a percentage of the preoperative ANS was 47% (IQR 43) vs 49% (IQR 49) for the early vs late groups, respectively (p=0.214). The shortest fabric distances were 5 mm (IQR 5) and 4 mm (IQR 7) for the early and late groups, respectively (p=0.604); the shortest sealing distances were 9 mm (IQR 13) and 16 mm (IQR 17), respectively (p=0.066).

CONCLUSION

Accurate positioning of the Nellix EVAS system in the aortic neck may be challenging. Despite considerable experience with the system, still around half of the potential seal in the aortic neck was missed in the current series, without improvement over time. This should be considered during preoperative planning and may be a cause of a higher than expected complication rate. Detailed post-EVAS nonapposition surface can be determined with the described novel methodology that takes into account the sometimes irregularly shaped top of the sealing endobags.

Initial Clinical Experience Using the Low-Profile Altura Endograft System With Double D-Shaped Proximal Stents for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Purpose: To report the initial clinical results of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the low-profile (14-F) Altura Endograft System, which features a double “D-shaped” stent design with suprarenal fixation and modular iliac components that are deployed from distal to proximal. Methods: From 2011 to 2015, 90 patients (mean age 72.8±8.3 years; 79 men) with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA; mean diameter 53.8±5.7 mm) were treated at 10 clinical sites in 2 prospective, controlled clinical studies using the Altura endograft. Outcomes evaluated included mortality, major adverse events (MAEs: all-cause death, stroke, paraplegia, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, bowel ischemia, and blood loss ≥1000 mL), and clinical success (freedom from procedure-related death, type I/III endoleak, migration, thrombosis, and reintervention). Results: Endografts were successfully implanted in 89 (99%) patients; the single failure was due to delivery system malfunction before insertion in the early-generation device. One (1%) patient died and 4 patients underwent reinterventions (1 type I endoleak, 2 iliac limb stenoses, and 1 endograft occlusion) within the first 30 days. During a median follow-up of 12.5 months (range 11.5–50.9), there were no aneurysm ruptures, surgical conversions, or AAA-related deaths. The cumulative MAE rates were 3% (3/89) at 6 months and 7% (6/89) at 1 year. Two patients underwent coil embolization of type II endoleaks at 6.5 months and 2.2 years, respectively. Clinical success was 94% (84/89) at 30 days, 98% (85/87) at 6 months, and 99% (82/83) at 1 year. Conclusion: Early results suggest that properly selected AAA patients can be safely treated using the Altura Endograft System with favorable midterm outcome. Thus, further clinical investigation is warranted to evaluate the role of this device in the treatment of AAA.

Comparison of endovascular aneurysm sealing and repair with respect to contrast use and radiation in comparable patient cohorts

BACKGROUND

Due to recent advances in endograft design and percutaneous access, technical success could be increased during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Beside EVAR, endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) provides an alternative procedure to treat aneurysms. To compare the two methods, additional benchmark criteria should be evaluated: Screening time, dose area product (DAP), procedure time and contrast use. In this study these technical variables are analyzed for EVAS vs. EVAR in comparable patient cohorts.

METHODS

It is a retrospective, single-center study. Only elective cases of infrarenal aortic aneurysms were included, all treated by the same surgeon (D.B.). Procedures were performed within the instructions for use without additional procedures. All operations were undertaken in a hybrid operating theatre. For EVAR, only the Medtronic Endurant® and the Gore C3 Excluder® were included. For EVAS the Nellix® from Endologix was used.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2016, 67 patients were treated with EVAS and 40 with EVAR; of these 20 and 16 could be introduced into the study respectively. Median age was 73 and 72 years respectively (only men). The two groups were comparable in terms of BMI, GFR and ASA-status. Screening time was reduced for EVAS (10.6 vs. 14.5 min., P<0.01), while the DAP was not significantly different. Procedural time and contrast use were increased for EVAS (120 vs. 96 min., 120 vs. 79 mL, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Especially the younger EVAS-procedure requires ongoing review in order to further reduce contrast agent. Reduced screening time for EVAS does not have a significant impact on radiation dose.

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.

Endobag separation - an ominous sign after endovascular aneurysm sealing with the Nellix device

Our report aims to alert physicians performing endovascular aneurysm sealing with the Nellix endoprosthesis to the risk of rupture when endobag separation is noticed on computed tomography. Endobag separation when observed with acute presentation of abdominal pain is an indicator of imminent rupture and prompt interventional treatment should be undertaken.

An Alternative Approach for Treating a Type Ia Endoleak after Conventional EVAR Using the Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing

BACKGROUND

To report the use of a Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) device, to successfully treat a type Ia endoleak (EL) after an endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).

CASE REPORT

A 70-year-old man was diagnosed with a 90-mm aortic aneurysm, suspicious for being inflammatory. It was initially treated successfully, with a Medtronic Endurant (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Five years after the index endovascular repair, an asymptomatic type Ia EL was detected on duplex ultrasound and computed tomographic angiogram. Other endovascular solutions in the form of proximal cuff, chimney was considered difficult to execute due to challenges in planning, manipulation, and renal cannulation caused by the short proximal sealing zone above the existing stent graft and the constraints of the previous endograft. Thus, a relining of the previous endoprothesis was performed using the Nellix system (Endologix, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA). One-year follow-up imaging demonstrated successful resolution of the EL and persistent sealing of the Nellix device.

CONCLUSIONS

Nellix EVAS system can be an alternative and safe option for relining a stent graft with a type Ia EL. Nellix platform can be added to the clinician's armamentarium for treating type Ia EL after conventional EVAR of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

Deformation and dynamic response of abdominal aortic aneurysm sealing

Endovascular sealing is a new technique for the repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Commercially available in Europe since 2013, it takes a revolutionary approach to aneurysm repair through minimally invasive techniques. Although aneurysm sealing may be thought as more stable than conventional endovascular stent graft repairs, post-implantation movement of the endoprosthesis has been described, potentially leading to late complications. The paper presents for the first time a model, which explains the nature of forces, in static and dynamic regimes, acting on sealed abdominal aortic aneurysms, with references to real case studies. It is shown that elastic deformation of the aorta and of the endoprosthesis induced by static forces and vibrations during daily activities can potentially promote undesired movements of the endovascular sealing structure.