6533b853fe1ef96bd12ad7d1

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) and Chimney EVAS in the Treatment of Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repairs

Marwan YoussefOroa SalemF. DünschedeChristian F. VahlSebastian ZerwesBernhard DorweilerRudolf Jakob

subject

MaleReoperationmedicine.medical_specialtyTime FactorsEndoleakComputed Tomography Angiographymedicine.medical_treatmentTechnical success030204 cardiovascular system & hematologyProsthesis DesignAortographyEndovascular aneurysm repair030218 nuclear medicine & medical imagingBlood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineAneurysmRisk FactorsGermanymedicineHumansRadiology Nuclear Medicine and imagingTreatment FailureAgedAged 80 and overbusiness.industryEndovascular Proceduresmedicine.diseaseAbdominal aortic aneurysmBlood Vessel ProsthesisSurgeryFemaleStentsSurgeryRadiologyCardiology and Cardiovascular MedicinebusinessAortic Aneurysm Abdominal

description

Purpose: To assess the technical success and clinical outcome of reinterventions using the Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System to treat complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: Fifteen consecutive patients (mean age 79 years; 14 men) with prior EVAR were treated with EVAS between March 2014 and December 2015 at 2 institutions. The failed prior EVARs included 13 bifurcated endografts, 1 bifurcated graft plus fenestrated cuff, and 1 tube endograft. Endoleaks were the predominant indications: type Ia in 10 and type III in 5 (3 type IIIa and 2 type IIIb). All patients presented with progressive aortic aneurysms (median 7.85-cm diameter; range 6.5–11). Eight patients were treated on an urgent or emergency basis (6 symptomatic aneurysms and 2 contained ruptures). All patients underwent Nellix relining of the failed stent-graft; 10 had chimney (Ch) procedures in combination with EVAS (chEVAS) because the proximal landing zones were inadequate. Results: Technical success was 100%. All endoleaks were successfully sealed, and no additional intervention was required. No further endoleak after EVAS or chEVAS was recorded. Endobag protrusion occurred in 1 case without sequelae. One elderly patient with ruptured aneurysm died from multiple organ failure 2 months postoperatively. One renal artery guidewire injury led to nephrectomy because of active bleeding. No reinterventions, aneurysm-related mortalities, graft thrombosis, endoleaks, or chimney graft occlusions were observed during a median follow-up of 8 months (range 3–24). Conclusion: The present preliminary experience demonstrates that the use of EVAS/chEVAS is feasible for treatment of failed EVAR. This technique may be used as bailout or an alternative treatment when other established methods are infeasible or not available.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1526602816675622