Migration and sac expansion as modes of midterm therapeutic failure after endovascular aneurysm sealing

Abstract

BackgroundEndovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is a disruptive technology to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The use of sac filling rather than endograft fixation was designed to treat aortic aneurysms in a wide range of morphologic appearances and to reduce endoleaks. There are few data reporting outcomes beyond postoperative follow-up. This study reports outcomes up to 5 years for Nellix (Endologix, Irvine, Calif) EVAS. MethodsData were prospectively collected for EVAS patients from the time of adoption of EVAS in 2013. All patients treated with the Nellix device are included in this study, and as such, it reports on infrarenal, ruptured, and iliac aneurysms as well as the Nellix-in-Nellix application. Juxtarenal and suprarenal aneurysms were treated using the EVAS system with parallel grafts into the visceral vessels and are included. Therapeutic failure, a composite outcome of migration, sac expansion >5 mm, type Ia and type Ib endoleak, and secondary aortic rupture, was the primary outcome along with all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and reintervention rates. ResultsThere were 295 EVAS cases undertaken between March 2013 and July 2018. Indications for treatment were infrarenal (n = 185), juxtarenal and suprarenal (n = 73), ruptured (n = 18), and iliac (n = 13) aneurysms. There were 15 reinterventions using the Nellix-in-Nellix application. In some cases, EVAS was used to salvage failing endovascular or open aneurysm repairs. Median follow-up was 2.42 years (interquartile range, 1.07-3.57 years).Therapeutic failure was observed in 98 of the 295 cases (33.2%) overall and exceeded 50% in some subgroups. In 71 cases (24.1%), reintervention was performed, with reasons for no reintervention being mainly physiologic. Complications leading to therapeutic failure were most commonly seen beyond 2 years of follow-up. There were 15 secondary ruptures (5.36%), and 9 EVAS devices required explantation either electively or for aortic rupture. ConclusionsEVAS with the Nellix device has not met expectations, and early encouraging results have been eroded. The incidence of therapeutic failure has been high, occurring 2 years and beyond after implantation. The Nellix system has been voluntarily recalled by Endologix, and the CE mark has subsequently been suspended. The adoption of EVAS as a disruptive technology highlights the need for cautious adoption of novel technologies and the strict governance around such arrangements.