The Effect of EndoAnchors on Aneurysm Sac Regression for Patients Treated With Infrarenal Endovascular Repair With Hostile Neck Anatomies: A Propensity Scored Analysis

PURPOSE

To analyze sac evolution patterns in matched patients with hostile neck anatomy (HNA) treated with standard endovascular aneurysm repair (sEVAR) and endosutured aneurysm repair (ESAR).

METHODS

Observational retrospective study using prospectively collected data between June 2010 and December 2019. ESAR group data were extracted from the primary arm of the PERU registry with an assigned identifier (NCT04100499) at 8 centers and those from the sEVAR came from 4 centers. Suitability for inclusion required: no proximal endograft adjuncts (besides EndoAnchor use), ≤15 mm neck length and minimum of 12-months follow-up imaging. Bubble-shaped neck (noncylindrical short neck with discontinuous seal) aspect was analyzed. Both groups were analyzed using propensity score matching (PSM) for aortic neck length, width, angulation, and device fixation type. Main outcome assessed was sac evolution patterns (sac expansion and regression were defined as >5mm increase or decrease, of the maximum sac diameter respectively; all AAAs within this ±5 mm range in diameter change were considered stable) and secondary outcomes were type-Ia endoleaks; other endoleaks and mortality. A power analysis calculation >80% was confirmed for sac regression evaluation.

RESULTS

After exclusions, PSM resulted in 96 ESAR and 96 sEVAR patients. Mean imaging follow-up (months) was 44.4±21.3 versus 43.0±19.6 (p=0.643), respectively. The overall number of patients achieving sac regression was higher in the ESAR group (n=57, 59.4% vs n=31, 32.3%; p<0.001) and the cumulative sac regression achieved at 5 years was 65% versus 38% (p=0.003) in favor of the ESAR group. There were no statistically significant differences in type-Ia endoleak and/or other endoleaks. Univariate analysis for sac regression patients in the sEVAR and ESAR group individually showed the bubble-shape neck as a predictor of sac regression failure. There were no statistical differences in overall and aneurysm-related mortality.

CONCLUSION

Endosutured aneurysm repair provided improved rates of sac regression for patients with AAA and HNA when compared with sEVAR at midterm and up to 5 years, despite similar rates of type-Ia endoleaks, and the need to consider some important limitations. The presence of bubble-shaped neck was a predictor of sac regression failure for both groups equally.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The use of EndoAnchors aids and improves EVAR treatment in hostile neck anatomies by an increased rate of sac regression when compared to EVAR treatment alone in up to 5 year analysis. Moreover, a trend to reduced number of type Ia endoleaks is also achieved, although not significant in the present study. This data, adds to current and growing evidence on the usefulness of EndoAnchors for AAA endovascular treatment.

Endosutured Aneurysm Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with Short Necks Achieves Acceptable Midterm Outcomes-Results from the Peru Registry

BACKGROUND

The study aims to describe midterm outcomes following treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with short necks by endosutured aneurysm repair using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor system.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from 9 vascular surgery departments between June 2010 and December 2019, including treated AAAs with neck lengths ≤10 mm. The decision for the use of EndoAnchors was made by the treating surgeon or multidisciplinary aortic committee according to each center's practice. There were 2 Groups further assessed according to neck length, A (≥4 and <7 mm) and B (≥7 and ≤10 mm). The main outcomes analyzed were technical success, freedom from type Ia endoleaks (TIaELs), sac size increase, all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were included in the study, 17 fell into Group A and 59 into Group B. Median follow-up for the cohort was 40.5 (interquartile range 12-61) months. A median of 6 (interquartile range 3) EndoAnchors were deployed in each subject. Technical success was 86.8% for the total group, 82.4% and 88.1% (P = 0.534) for Groups A and B respectively. Six out of 10 (60%) of TIaELs at the completion angiographies showed spontaneous resolution. Cumulative freedom from TIaEL at 3 and 5 years for the total group was 89% and 84% respectively; this was 93% and 74% for Group A and 88% at both intervals in Group B (P = 0.545). In total, there were 7 (9.2%) patients presenting with TIaELs over the entire study period. Two (11.8%) in Group A and 5 (8.5%) in Group B (P = 0.679). There were more patients with sac regression in Group B (Group A = 6-35.3% vs. Group B = 34-57.6%, P = 0.230) with no statistical significance. All-cause mortality was 19 (25%) patients, with no difference (4-23.5% vs. 15-25.4%, P = 0.874) between groups; whereas aneurysm-related mortality occurred in 1 patient from Group A and 3 from Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates reasonable outcomes for patients with short-necked AAAs treated by endosutured aneurysm repair in terms of TIaELs up to 5-year follow-up. EndoAnchor use should be judiciously evaluated in short necks and may be a reasonable option when anatomical constraints are encountered, mainly for those with 7-10 mm neck lengths. Shorter neck length aspects, as indicated by the results from Group A, may be an alternative when no other options are available or feasible.

Mid-term outcomes of the use of endoanchors during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in multicentre analysis

Objective

To describe mid-term outcomes of the use of EndoAnchors as an adjunct for arch and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods

A retrospective multicentre series from nine centres using the Heli-FX EndoAnchor System (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, USA) at TEVAR over May 2014–May 2019 is presented. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT04100499. The primary outcome was freedom from Type I endoleak at EndoAnchors deployments; secondary outcomes included evaluation of aortic wall penetration (AWP) at first computed tomography scan, EndoAnchor-related issues and mortality.

Results

54 high-risk patients (35 males/19 females, age 73 ± 11 years) with arch, thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysmal disease (3 chronic post-dissection and one patch pseudoaneurysm), with a mean neck length 19.7 ± 6.6 mm that were treated with multiple hybrid and endovascular techniques were included. A total of 329 EndoAnchors were used with a mean of 6.1 ± 2.5 per patient. Overall adequate AWP was 86%, whereas arch (Ishimaru’s zones 0–2) deployments achieved 80.6% when compared to 87.3% in descending thoracic aorta (dTA); although there was no statistical significance. Freedom from type I endoleaks was 88% at 2 year follow-up, due to 4 type IA endoleaks, two of them successfully treated, one with conservative treatment due to complexity of repair and remaining patient died 1 year later due to endograft infection. There were reported five EndoAnchor-related issues; four losses and one renal stent-graft was crushed due to catheter deflection solved with balloon reinflation. None of the losses had clinical significance. Overall mortality is described for 7 (9.5%) patients, one of them aneurysm-related.

Conclusions

The adjunctive use of EndoAnchors in TEVAR and complex TEVAR procedures achieved acceptable outcomes at midterm in a high-risk series with hostile seal zones. Still, they should be still judiciously used as there is lack of data to suggest a more liberal use; therefore, the landing zone should not be compromised in favour of their use.

Endovascular aortic repair with EndoAnchors demonstrate good mid-term outcomes in physician-initiated multicenter analysis-The PERU registry

OBJECTIVES

We aim to describe real-world outcomes from multicenter data about the efficacy of adjunct Heli-FX EndoAnchor usage in preventing or repairing failures during infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), so-called EndoSutured-aneurysm-repair (ESAR).

METHODS

The current study has been assigned an identifier (NCT04100499) at the US National Library of Medicine (https://ClinicalTrials.gov). It is an observational retrospective study of prospectively collected data from seven vascular surgery departments between June 2010 and December 2019. Patients included in the ANCHOR registry were excluded from this analysis. The decision for the use of EndoAnchors was made by the treating surgeon or multidisciplinary aortic committee according to each center's practice. Follow-up imaging was scheduled according to each center's protocol, which necessarily included either abdominal ultrasound or radiography or computed tomographic scan imaging. The main outcomes analyzed were technical success, freedom from type Ia endoleaks (IaEL), all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality, and sac variation and trends evaluated for those with at least six months imaging follow-up.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-five patients underwent ESAR in participating centers during the study period. After exclusions, 221 patients (184 males, 37 females, mean age 75 ± 8.3 years) were finally included for analysis. Median follow-up for the cohort was 27 (interquartile range 12-48) months. A median 6 (interquartile range 3) EndoAnchors were deployed at ESAR, 175 (79%) procedures were primary and 46 (21%) revision cases, 40 associated with type IaEL. Technical success at operation (initial), 30-day, and overall success were 89, 95.5, and 96.8%, respectively; the 30-day success was higher due to those with subsequent spontaneous proximal endoleak seal. At two years, freedom from type IaEL was 94% for the whole series; 96% and 86% for the primary and revision groups, respectively; whereas freedom from all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and reintervention was 89%, 98%, and 87%, respectively. Sac evolution pre-ESAR was 66 ± 15.1 vs. post ESAR 61 ± 17.5 (p < 0.001) and for 180 patients with at least six-month follow-up, 92.2% of them being in a stable (51%) or regression (41%) situation.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world registry demonstrates that adjunct EndoAnchor usage at EVAR achieves high rates of freedom from type IaEL at mid-term including in a high number of patients with hostile neck anatomy, with positive trends in sac-size evolution. Further data with longer follow-up may help to establish EndoAnchor usage as a routine adjunct to EVAR, especially in hostile necks.

Endograft platform does not influence aortic neck dilatation after infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair with primary endostapling

OBJECTIVES

Aortic endografts used for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are based on varying skeletal platforms such as stainless steel or nitinol stents, using radial force applied to seal at the aneurysm neck, and varying proximal fixation methods, applying either suprarenal or infrarenal fixation. This study assesses whether varying skeleton/fixation platforms affect neck-related outcomes after primary endostapling with Heli-FX EndoAnchors at EVAR.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a prospective database of infrarenal EVAR undertaken at a single centre. Chimney-EVAR, secondary cases were excluded. Primary outcomes analysed included neck diameter evolution from pre-EVAR to latest imaging follow-up, including a comparison of stent platforms to see if there was any outcome difference between those using stainless steel or nitinol, as also freedom from type I endoleakage and migration. Secondary outcomes assessed included average number of EndoAnchors, and sac size patterns before and after EVAR.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients underwent endostapled infrarenal EVAR between September 2013 and March 2020. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 84 patients (76 male, 8 female, age 73.7 ± 7.8 years) were available for analysis. 57/27 endografts used suprarenal/infrarenal fixation, whilst 16/68 devices were based on stainless steel/nitinol platforms, respectively. Mean oversizing was higher for stainless steel/suprarenal fixation endografts (p = 0.02). A total of 582 EndoAnchors were deployed, averaging 7 ± 2 per patient. Median neck diameter was 25 mm (IQR 22-31) with 22 necks having non-parallel morphology (conical, tapered or bubble). Median follow-up period was 28.5 (IQR 12-43) months. Neck evolution studies suggested aortic neck dilatation of 5 ± 4 mm (p <0.001, paired T-test), independent of platforms employed (p = NS, ANOVA). There was no endograft migration; one immediate post-EVAR endoleak settled by eight weeks. There was a mean 5.7 ± 8.2 mm sac size reduction (p < 0.001, paired T-test).

CONCLUSION

Aortic neck dilatation occurs after EVAR with primary endostapling, but the process may be independent of stainless steel/nitinol platforms, possibly due to the attenuating effect of EndoAnchors. Adjunct aneurysm neck fixation by primary endostapling prevents migration regardless of whether suprarenal/infrarenal fixation is the primary fixative method. Device platform choice therefore may be left to the operator discretion if primary endostapling is applied at EVAR. Freedom from complications such as migration and endoleakage in the intermediate term suggests a higher level of 'tolerance' to aortic neck dilatation with primary endostapling. We would therefore suggest routine usage of EndoAnchors at EVAR when not otherwise contraindicated.

The Impact of EndoAnchor Penetration on Endograft Structure: First Report of Explant Analysis

Objective

The adjunctive use of Heli-FX EndoAnchors (EAs) in endovascular aneurysm repair has been proposed for the treatment or prevention of type Ia endoleaks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the penetration of EAs on endograft textile structure from two aortic endografts that had been explanted for persistent type Ia endoleak despite the implantation of EAs.

Methods

An Aorfix aortic endograft was implanted in an 85 year old man. Six months later, six EAs were implanted for Ia endoleak. The endograft was explanted as an emergency seven months later for aneurysm rupture. An Endurant II aortic endograft was implanted in an 80 year old man. Seven EAs were implanted 24 months later for type Ia endoleak. A proximal cuff extension with bilateral renal and superior mesenteric artery chimneys was performed 18 months later to treat a persistent type Ia endoleak. Endograft explantation was performed six months later owing to persistent type Ia endoleak and aneurysm sac enlargement. Explant analysis in both cases was performed at GEPROVAS.

Results

Systematic analysis of both explants, including the 13 EAs, revealed the following lesions: (1) alteration of textile structure directly linked to several penetrations of the fabric with the same EA and tears of the textile fibres in two cases; (2) tears of the binding threads as the EA had passed through them in five cases; and (3) interactions between EA and endograft stents in four cases.

Conclusion

The site of EA penetration into the endograft might contribute to endograft fabric damage and to a loss of stability of the endograft at the level of the aortic neck.

•

The impact of endoanchors penetration on endograft textile structure has been studied.

•

Systematic analysis of two aortic explanted endografts was performed.

•

Textile alteration, tears of the binding threads and stents lesions were observed.

•

Site of penetration of endoanchors might contribute to endograft fabric damage.

•

Follow-up on new technologies through explant analysis programs is mandatory.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in the Setting of Compromised Distal Landing Zones

BACKGROUND

The short-term and intermediate-term outcomes of two distinct approaches to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for descending aortic aneurysms in patients with compromised distal landing zones are reported.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients (38 female, average age 72 ± 9 years) underwent 55 TEVARs (2008 to 2018) for aneurysmal disease. Inclusion criteria consisted of TEVAR in a compromised distal landing zone, defined as follows: diameter 3.5 cm or greater; cross-sectional thrombus 50% or greater; or 25% or greater circumferential mural calcification in the 2 cm supraceliac aorta; or tortuosity index of 1.1 or more over the 10 cm supraceliac aorta. Treatment cohorts were (1) TEVAR alone (n = 29), and (2) TEVAR with adjunct consisting of visceral snorkel graft with distal stent extension (n = 20) or EndoAnchors (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN [n = 6]).

RESULTS

Perioperative complication rate was 20%. Thirty-day mortality was 5% including one access-site related intraoperative death and one postoperative death from embolic mesenteric ischemia. Median clinical follow-up was 2.2 years. Intermediate-term outcomes include type 1B endoleaks, 35%; 0.5 cm or more per year maximal aortic diameter growth, 9%; reintervention, 15%; and all-cause mortality, 25%. The distal landing zone diameter increased by 0.3 cm per year in the TEVAR alone cohort; however, it decreased by 0.1 cm per year in the adjunct cohort ( P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a viable alternative for the treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in patients with compromised distal landing zones, although these patients may benefit significantly from the development of branched thoracoabdominal devices. In the interim, the use of TEVAR adjuncts may limit progressive degeneration of the distal landing zone in this patient population.

Predictors of inadequate EndoAnchors aortic wall penetration for the Endosutured therapy in hostile neck patients

BACKGROUND

The use of EndoAnchors is increasing; however, not much about appropriate use in terms of aortic wall penetration (AWP) is described. We aim to evaluate the procedural and anatomical conditions related with borderline (b) or absence (ab) of AWP when checked on first CT-scan after the Endosutured aortic repair (ESAR) for hostile neck anatomies (HNA).

METHODS

This study with NCT04100499 is a single center prospective evaluation of patients receiving EndoAnchors for prevention or treatment of a proximal EVAR failure. AWP was evaluated on first CT-scan and findings correlated with neck anatomical features and procedural data. The sum of borderline and absence of AWP was considered as Inadequate - In-AWP (failure). Adjunctive procedures, reinterventions, all-cause mortality, absence of type Ia EL and aneurysm related mortality are also described.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were treated during the study period and 43 high-surgical risk patients were finally included in the study for analysis with at least one HNA criteria (58%) and associating two in 21% or even three in 21%. A total of 250 EndoAnchors were deployed at a median 6 (range, 4-10) per case. From those, 31 (12.5%) achieved b-AWP and 11 (4.4%) ab-AWP, meaning 42 (16.8%) EndoAnchors with In-AWP. Univariate-analysis showed being an occasional user and a therapeutic case as predictor for at least one and more failures. The only predictor on multivariate analysis for two or more EndoAnchors with In-AWP was being an occasional user. Cumulative-survival and freedom from type-Ia EL at 2-years was 84% and 95%; respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of the ESAR therapy should be validated according to their aortic wall penetration checked on first CT-scan. EndoAnchors use in HNA should not be considered an easy approach for the endovascular technique, especially for therapeutic cases. An individual and specific case analysis counterbalancing inadequate use of the device in unexperienced users should be evaluated against the increased risk of proximal failure as in standard EVAR alone during HNA treatment.

Evaluation of EndoAnchor Aortic Wall Penetration After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Purpose: To analyze aortic wall penetration of Heli-FX EndoAnchors after use in seal zones in the aortic arch or descending thoracic aorta during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: From May 2014 to May 2019, 25 patients (mean age 70.5±10 years; 16 women) were treated with TEVAR and adjunctive use of the Heli-FX device in 3 academic vascular surgery departments. Computed tomography scans were retrospectively reviewed to determine the location [arch or descending thoracic aorta (DTA)] of the EndoAnchors and the adequacy of aortic wall penetration, defined as adequate (≥2 mm), partial (<2 mm), or inadequate wall penetration (including loss). Endoleaks, reinterventions, and mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 161 EndoAnchors were deployed (median 7 per patient, range 4–9). Twenty-two EndoAnchors were place in the arch (zones 0–2) and 139 in the DTA (zones 3–5). A larger proportion of arch deployments (27%) had suboptimal penetration compared with the DTA (6.5%; p<0.005), resulting in a 91% adequate wall penetration rate for the series overall. Three EndoAnchors were lost (and only 1 retrieved) in 3 different patients, with no additional morbidity; thus, an overall deployment success rate of 88% was achieved. At a mean follow-up of 16.6±14 months, 4 patients required 5 (successful) reinterventions, including one for a type Ia endoleak treated with chimney TEVAR. One patient died 10 months after treatment due to endograft infection, without an opportunity for surgical correction. Conclusion: EndoAnchors have a higher risk of maldeployment in the arch, though this may be attributable to the small learning curve experience in this location. The best aortic wall penetration for this series was in the DTA, where EndoAnchors proved useful for distal endograft fixation during TEVAR.