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.

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.

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.