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.

Outcomes of Endurant II Stent Graft According to Anatomic Severity Grade Score

OBJECTIVES

This study's objective was to evaluate Endurant II (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) stent graft's early and midterm outcomes and compare the results according to the anatomic severity grade (ASG) scores.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients treated with the Endurant II stent graft between January 2013 and May 2021. The patients were divided into 2 independent groups, including those with a low ASG score (score <14) and a high ASG score (score >14).

RESULTS

A total of 165 consecutive patients (89% males, age 74±8 years) were included. There were 110 (67%) patients in the low-score group and 55 (33%) patients in the high-score group. Technical success was achieved in all cases. Primary clinical success at 30 days was 100% and at 1 year was 96%. Median operative time was longer in the high-score group with no statistical significance (133 vs 120 minutes, p=0.116). The median dose area product of low-score patients (50.9 Gy·cm2; IQR 22.4-75.5 Gy·cm2) was significantly lower than high-score patients (85.0 Gy·cm2; IQR 46.5-127.9 Gy·cm2) with p=0.025. Median fluoroscopic time was lower in low-score patients (17 minutes; IQR 13-24 minutes) compared with high-score patients (19 minutes; IQR 16-23 minutes) without a significant difference at p=0.148. At a midterm follow-up of 32 months (range 2-63 months), combined complications (29% vs 8%, p<0.001) and implant-related complications (13% vs 4%, p=0.043) were higher in the high-score group. Systemic complications at 30 days were higher in the high-score group without a statistically significant difference (15% vs 11%, p=0.500). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from reintervention was significantly higher in the low-risk group at 1 (97% vs 90%), 2 (96% vs 88%), and 3 years (96% vs 85%) with (p=0.035). The cumulative survival rate was significantly higher in the low-score group than high-score group (p=0.001) at 1 (99% vs 87%), 2 (98% vs 85%), and 3 years (96% vs 82%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endurant II endovascular aneurysm repair seems to be safe in both low-score and high-score patients. However, patients in the high-score group showed more implant-related complications and midterm mortalities than those in the low-score group.

Systematic Review on the Mid-Term Outcomes of Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing in Comparison to Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

INTRODUCTION

The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) system has been a topic of discussion. Early results were promising but did not deliver on the long-term and the device has been recalled from the market. This study compares literature for EVAS and conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

A systematic review and analysis was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched and identified the eligible studies. Proportion rates for the outcomes of interest were extracted. Subgroup analyses were performed for EVAS and EVAR.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included (EVAS n = 4, EVAR n = 8) including 10,255 patients (EVAS n = 784, EVAR n = 9441). The longest duration of follow-up was 3.4 years for EVAS and 5.0 years for EVAR studies. Throughout follow-up the overall all-cause mortality rates were 6% for EVAS and 13% for EVAR, and endoleak of any type was described in 10% of EVAS and 17% of EVAR patients. The migration rate >10 mm was 8% for EVAS and 0% for EVAR and aneurysm growth >5 mm was found in 11% of EVAS and 3% of EVAR cases. Total reintervention rate was 13% for EVAS and 7% for EVAR patients. For all analyzed outcome parameters heterogeneity was >50%.

CONCLUSION

There is a tendency toward lower mortality and overall endoleak rates for EVAS compared to EVAR but with a higher rate of migration, aneurysm growth, and reintervention. Despite lower overall endoleak rates there was a tendency toward less type II and more type I endoleaks after EVAS compared to EVAR. Substantial heterogeneity however limits robust statistical analyses, and is probably caused by significant instructions for use breach in EVAS-treated patients. We call for more high-quality and long-term follow-up studies on both EVAS and EVAR in order to confirm the trends found in this study.

An International, Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study to Assess Technical Success and Clinical Outcomes of Patients Treated with an Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing Device for Type III Endoleak

INTRODUCTION

Type III endoleaks post-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) warrant treatment because they increase pressure within the aneurysm sac leading to increased rupture risk. The treatment may be difficult with regular endovascular devices. Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) might provide a treatment option for type III endoleaks, especially if located near the flow divider. This study aims to analyze clinical outcomes of EVAS for type III endoleaks after EVAR.

METHODS

This is an international, retrospective, observational cohort study including data from 8 European institutions.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were identified of which 80% had a type IIIb endoleak and the remainder (20%) a type IIIa endoleak. The median time between EVAR and EVAS was 49.5 months (28.5-89). Mean AAA diameter prior to EVAS revision was 76.6±19.9 mm. Technical success was achieved in 95%, 1 patient had technical failure due to a postoperative myocardial infarction resulting in death. Mean follow-up was 22.8±15.2 months. During follow-up 1 patient had a type Ia endoleak, and 1 patient had a new type IIIa endoleak at an untreated location. There were 5 patients with aneurysm growth. Five patients underwent AAA-related reinterventions indications being: growth with type II endoleak (n=3), type Ia endoleak (n=1), and iliac aneurysm (n=1). At 1-year follow-up, the freedom from clinical failure was 77.5%, freedom from all-cause mortality 94.7%, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality 95%, and freedom from aneurysm-related reinterventions 93.8%.

CONCLUSION

The EVAS relining can be safely performed to treat type III endoleaks with an acceptable technical success rate, a low 30-day mortality rate and no secondary ruptures at short-term follow-up. The relatively low clinical success rates, related to reinterventions and AAA enlargement, highlight the need for prolonged follow-up.

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.

Secondary Fill Minimizes Gutter Size in Chimney EVAS Configurations In Vitro

Purpose: To investigate in an in vitro model if secondary endobag filling can reduce gutter size during chimney endovascular aneurysm sealing (chEVAS). Materials and Methods: Nellix EVAS systems were deployed in 2 silicone juxtarenal aneurysm models with suprarenal aortic diameters of 19 and 24 mm. Four configurations were tested: EVAS with 6-mm balloon-expandable (BE) or self-expanding (SE) chimney grafts (CGs) in the renal branches of both models. Balloons were inflated simultaneously in the CGs and main endografts during primary and secondary endobag filling and polymer curing. Computed tomography (CT) was performed immediately after the primary and secondary fills. Cross-sectional lumen areas were measured on the CT images to calculate gutter volumes and percent change. CG compression was calculated as the reduction in lumen surface area measured perpendicular to the central lumen line. The largest gutter volume and highest compression were presented per CG configuration per model. Results: Secondary endobag filling reduced the largest gutter volumes from 99.4 to 73.1 mm³ (13.2% change) and 84.2 to 72.0 mm³ (27.6% change) in the BECG configurations and from 67.2 to 44.0 mm³ (34.5% change) and 92.7 to 82.3 mm³ (11.2% change) in the SECG configurations in the 19- and 24-mm models, respectively. Secondary endobag filling increased CG compression in 6 of 8 configurations. BECG compression changed by −0.2% and 5.4% and by −1.0% and 0.4% in the 19- and 24-mm models, respectively. SECG compression changed by 10.2% and 16.0% and by 7.2% and 7.3% in the 19- and 24-mm models, respectively. Conclusion: Secondary endobag filling reduced paragraft gutters; however, this technique did not obliterate them. Increased CG compression and prolonged renal ischemia time should be considered if secondary endobag filling is used.

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.