6533b82bfe1ef96bd128cdb8

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Editor's Choice – Occurrence and Classification of Proximal Type I Endoleaks After EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing Using the Nellix™ Device

Leo H. Van Den HamAndrew HoldenJanis SavlovskisAndrew WitterbottomKenneth OurielMichel M.p.j. ReijnenLeo Van Den HamMichel ReijnenAndrew HoldenJanis SavlovskisDainis KrievinsAndrew WinterbottomPaul HayesJan HeyligersDittmar BöcklerJean-paul De VriesSebastian ZerwesRudi JakobMarwan YoussefPatrick BergRoland StroetgesAlexander OberhuberEric ZimmermannMichelangelo FerriJorg De Bruin

subject

Malemedicine.medical_specialtyEndoleakmedicine.medical_treatmentTechnical successEarly detectionComputed tomography030204 cardiovascular system & hematology030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineAneurysmRisk FactorsHumansMedicineAgedRetrospective StudiesAged 80 and overmedicine.diagnostic_testbusiness.industryIncidenceIncidence (epidemiology)Endovascular ProceduresStentMiddle Agedmedicine.diseaseAbdominal aortic aneurysmSurgeryTreatment OutcomeFemaleSurgeryCore laboratoryCardiology and Cardiovascular MedicinebusinessAortic Aneurysm Abdominal

description

Objective/Background Proximal type I endoleaks are associated with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) growth and rupture and necessitate repair. The Nellix™ EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) system is a unique approach to AAA repair, where the appearance and treatment of endoleaks is also different. This study aimed to analyse and categorise proximal endoleaks in an EVAS treated cohort. Methods All patients, treated from February 2013 to December 2015, in 15 experienced EVAS centres, presenting with proximal endoleak were included. Computed tomography scans were analysed by a core laboratory. A consensus meeting was organised to discuss and qualify each case for selection, technical aspects, and possible causes of the endoleak. Endoleaks were classified using a novel classification system for EVAS. Results During the study period 1851 patients were treated using EVAS at 15 centres and followed for a median of 494 ± 283 days. Among these, 58 cases (3.1%) developed a proximal endoleak (1.5% early and 1.7% late); of these, 84% of 58 patients were treated outside the original and 96% outside the current, refined, instructions for use. Low stent positioning was the most likely cause in 44.6%, a hostile anatomy in 16.1%, and a combination of both in 33.9%. Treatment, by embolisation or proximal extension, was performed in 47% of cases, with a technical success of 97%. Conclusion The overall incidence of proximal endoleak after EVAS is 3.1% after a mean follow-up period of 16 months, with 1.5% occurring within 30 days. Their occurrence is related to patient selection and stent positioning. Early detection and classification is crucial to avoid the potential of sac rupture.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.09.016