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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.