Survival After Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing Compared With Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Introduction Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is a sac-filling device with a blunted systemic inflammatory response compared to conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), with a suggested impact on all-cause mortality. This study compares mortality after both EVAS and EVAR. Materials and Methods This is a retrospective observational study including data from 2 centres, with ethical approval. Elective procedures on asymptomatic infrarenal aneurysms performed between January 2011 until April 2018 were enrolled. Laboratory values (serum creatinine, haemoglobin, white blood cell count, platelet count) were measured pre- and postoperatively and at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Mortality and cause of death were recorded during follow-up. Results A total of 564 patients were included (225 EVAS, 369 EVAR), after propensity score matching there were 207 patients in both groups. Baseline characteristics were similar, except for larger neck angulation and more pulmonary disease in the EVAR group. The median follow-up time was 49 (EVAS) and 44 (EVAR) months. No significant differences regarding creatinine and haemoglobin were observed. Preoperative white blood cell count was higher in the EVAR group (p=0.011), without significant differences during follow-up. Median platelet count was lower in the EVAR group preoperatively (p=0.001), but was significantly higher at 1 year follow-up (p=0.003). There were 43 deaths within the EVAS group (20.8%) and 52 within the EVAR group (25.1%) (p=0.293). Of these, 4 were aneurysm related (EVAS n=3, EVAR n=1; p=0.222) and 14 cardiovascular (EVAS n=6, EVAR n=8, p=0.845). For the EVAS cohort, survival was 95.5% at 1 year and 74.9% at 5 years. For the EVAR cohort, this was 93.3% at 1 year and 75.5% at 5 years. No significant differences were observed in causes of death. Conclusion This study showed comparable survival rates through 5 years between EVAS and EVAR with a tendency toward higher inflammatory response in the EVAR patients through the first 2 years

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 &gt;10 mm was 8% for EVAS and 0% for EVAR and aneurysm growth &gt;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 &gt;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.</p

Secondary Endovascular Aneurysm (EVAS) Sealing in Combination With Chimney Grafts to Treat Failed Chimney EVAS

Purpose: To describe a proximal extension of a failed chimney endovascular aneurysm sealing repair (chEVAS) using a chEVAS-in-chEVAS procedure in 2 cases with successful treatment outcome at 2-year follow-up. Case Report: Two patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm were treated with an elective chEVAS procedure with 1 chimney stent for a unilateral renal artery. At 18 and 24 months, respectively, both patients showed aneurysm growth with an associated decrease in proximal seal. Both patients were treated with a secondary chEVAS procedure, consisting of chimney stent-graft placement in the contralateral renal and the superior mesenteric arteries combined with proximal extension of the in situ chimney stent-graft and the Nellix stents. Two-year follow-up demonstrated successful aneurysm exclusion with a patent stent configuration. Conclusion: A type Ia endoleak after chEVAS can be successfully repaired with a chEVAS-in-chEVAS procedure

Migration After Endovasclar Aneurysm Sealing in Conjunction With Chimney Grafts

Purpose: To assess the incidence of migration after endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) in conjunction with chimney grafts (chEVAS) for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Materials and Methods: A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted of 31 patients (mean age 75.7 years; 27 men) treated for juxtarenal AAA between April 2013 and December 2018 at single centers in New Zealand and the Netherlands. The majority of patients received >1 chimney graft (13 single, 13 double, and 5 triple) during chEVAS. Six patients had only the first postoperative scan, so the migration analysis was based on 25 patients. Results: Median seal length assessed on the first postoperative computed tomography scan was 36.5 mm. The assisted technical success rate was 93.5% with 2 technical failures. Median time to final imaging follow-up was 17 months in 25 patients. At the latest follow-up, there were no cases of caudal migration >10 mm. Freedom from caudal movement of 5 to 9 mm was estimated as 86.1% at 1 year and 73.9% at 2 years; freedom from clinically relevant migration (movement requiring reintervention) was 100% at both time intervals. However, at 3 years there were 2 cases of caudal movement of 5 to 9 mm and a type Ia endoleak warranting reintervention. No correlation between migration and aneurysm growth (p=0.851), endoleak (p=0.562), or the number of chimney grafts (p=0.728) was found. During follow-up, 2 patients (7%) had aneurysm rupture and 10 (33%) had reinterventions. Eight patients (27%) died; 2 were aneurysm-related (7%) and due to the consequences of a reintervention. Conclusion: In the 2 years following chEVAS, there was no caudal migration >10 mm, but nearly a quarter of patients had caudal movement of 5 to 9 mm. A trend was observed toward ongoing migration that required intervention at 3-year follow-up. chEVAS is technically challenging and should be considered only for patients with no viable alternative treatment option

Feasibility and Technical Aspects of Proximal Nellix-in-Nellix Extension for Late Caudal Endograft Migration

Purpose: To describe the feasibility and technical aspects of a proximal Nellix-in-Nellix extension to treat caudal stent-graft migration after endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) in the in vitro and in vivo settings. Methods: In vitro studies were designed (1) to assess inner diameters of Nellix-in-Nellix extensions after postdilation with 12-mm balloons and (2) to test wall apposition in tubes with different diameters using a Nellix-in-Nellix stent-graft that extended out of the original Nellix stent-graft lumen by 10, 20, 30, and 40 mm. Simulated-use experiments were performed using silicone models in conjunction with a pulsatile flow pump. In the clinical setting, 5 patients (median age 74 years, range 73-83) presented at 2 centers with type Ia endoleak secondary to caudal Nellix stent-graft migration measuring a median 9 mm (range 7-15) on the left and 7 mm (range 0-11) on the right. Median polymer fill volume at the initial EVAS procedure was 42.5 mL (range 25-71). The median time to reintervention with a proximal Nellix extension was 15 months (range 13-32). Results: In vitro, the inner diameters of the Nellix-in-Nellix extensions were consistent after postdilation. Cases with 10 and 20 mm of exposed endobag resulted in a poor seal with endoleak, while cases with 30 and 40 mm of exposed endobag length exhibited angiographic seal. Fill line pressures of the second Nellix were higher than expected. In the 5 clinical cases, chimney grafts were required in each case to create an adequate proximal landing zone. The Nellix-in-Nellix procedure was successful in all patients. There were no procedure-related complications, and no endoleaks were observed during a median 12-month follow-up. Reinterventions were performed in 2 patients because of in-stent stenosis and chimney graft compression, respectively. Conclusion: Proximal Nellix-in-Nellix extension can be used to treat caudally migrated Nellix stent-grafts and to treat the consequent type Ia endoleak, but the technique differs from primary EVAS. The development of dedicated proximal extensions is desirable