Search

Objective: Relining of a previously placed surgical graft or endograft for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a reintervention to treat progression of disease or failure of the primary (endo)graft. Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) relining is a technique with potential advantages due to the absence of a bifurcation, the possibility for a unilateral approach, and sealing concept of the endobags. The purpose of this study was to describe the nationwide experience with EVAS relining of previous AAA repair in the Netherlands., Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent EVAS relining in 7 high volume vascular centres in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success. Secondary outcomes were perioperative outcomes, complications and survival., Results: Thirty-three patients underwent EVAS relining of open (n = 10) or endovascular (n = 23) repair. 26 were elective cases, 5 were urgent and 2 were acute (ruptured). Mean time between primary treatment and EVAS relining was 99 ± 74 months. Indications after open repair were proximal progression of disease (n = 7) and graft defect (n = 3). Indications after EVAR were type IA (n = 10), type IB (n = 3), type IIIA (n = 4), type IIIB (n = 3) endoleak, and endotension (n = 3). 18 patients underwent regular EVAS, 4 unilateral EVAS and 11 chimney-EVAS. In-hospital mortality was 6% (both patients with rAAA). Technical success was achieved in 97%. Median follow-up after EVAS relining was 20 months (range 0-43). Freedom from reintervention at 1-year and 2-year were 83% and 61% and the estimated survival 79% and 71%, respectively. EVAS relining after open repair had a clinical success of 90% at 1-year and of 70% at latest follow-up, while after EVAR clinical success rates were 70% and 52%, respectively., Conclusion: EVAS relining of previous AAA repair is associated with high technical success, however with limited clinical success at median follow-up of 20 months. Clinical success was higher in patients with EVAS relining after open repair than after EVAR. In patients with failed AAA repair, EVAS relining should only be considered, when established techniques such as fenestrated repair or open conversion are not available or indicated., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background: The 1-year results of the use of the Nellix (Endologix Inc, Irvine, Calif) endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) device were initially promising. However, midterm complications including migration and aneurysm growth occurred more frequently than expected, which provided an incentive to refine the instructions for use. Strategies for the management of complications arising after endovascular aneurysm repair are often not applicable for EVAS, given the unique configuration of the Nellix device, and new techniques are needed. This study analyzes the clinical outcomes of both elective and emergency deployment of a new Nellix device within a primarily placed device, for failure of EVAS, which we refer to as a Nellix-in-Nellix application (NINA)., Methods: This is a global, retrospective, observational cohort study focusing on the early outcome of NINA for failed EVAS, including data from 11 European institutions and 1 hospital in New Zealand., Results: A total of 41 patients were identified who underwent a NINA procedure. Of these, 32 (78%) were placed electively and 9 (22%) were placed on an emergency basis. Seven patients were initially treated with chimney EVAS (n = 5 in the elective NINA group and n = 2 in the emergency NINA group). The average time between the primary EVAS procedure and NINA was 573 days (interquartile range, [IQR] 397-1078 days) and 478 days (IQR, 120-806) for the elective and emergency groups, respectively. The indication for elective NINA was endoleak with migration (50%), endoleak without migration (25%), migration without endoleak (16%), and other (9%). Chimney grafts were used in 21 of 32 patients in the elective group and 3 of 9 patients in the emergency group. Technical success was achieved in 94% of patients in the elective group and 100% of patients in the emergency group. At latest follow-up (median, 104 days; IQR, 49-328 days), there were three aneurysm-related deaths (9%), no ruptures, and five device-related reinterventions (16%) within the elective group. In the emergency group (median follow-up, 23 days; IQR, 7-61 days), there were four aneurysm-related deaths and three aneurysm-related reinterventions., Conclusions: In conclusion, a NINA can be used to treat late failures of EVAS with an acceptable technical success rate and can be used when more established treatment options are unfeasible or contraindicated. The durability of this technique needs to be further reviewed., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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.

Background: Lyme disease is a multisystem disease which can present itself in several ways. When the nervous system is involved, it is called Lyme neuroborreliosis. Both central and peripheral nervous systems can be affected., Case Description: A 39-year-old man visited the emergency department multiple times with severe abdominal-pain attacks with motoric unrest. Extensive diagnostic work-up was done, which was initially inconclusive. Lyme neuroborreliosis was suspected when he developed a facial-nerve palsy during admission; the abdominal pain was thought to be caused by thoracic radiculoneuropathy. Serologic testing for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi was positive, confirming the diagnosis. The patient was treated with intravenous ceftriaxone., Conclusion: This case shows abdominal pain being caused by radiculoneuropathy at thoracic level, an uncommon presentation of Lyme neuroborreliosis. Often, this diagnosis is only made when neurological paralysis occurs. Information regarding skin lesions or a recent tick bite can lead to earlier recognition of the diagnosis.

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.

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.