Thomas F X O'Donnell1, Jeffrey P Carpenter2, John S Lane3, Jose Trani2, Sajjad Hussain4, Christopher Healey5, Mahmoud B Malas6, Marc L Schermerhorn7. 1. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ. 3. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA; Division of Vascular Surgery, San Diego VA Hospital, San Diego CA. 4. Division of Vascular Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, Indianapolis, IN. 5. Division of Vascular Surgery, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME. 6. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA. 7. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. Electronic address: mscherm@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Periprocedural risks are low, and cardiovascular events are the principle determinants of long-term survival. Recently, the concept of endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) has been introduced into clinical investigation. In previous cohort studies, EVAS has been associated with a lower all-cause mortality than expected despite device issues. We used a propensity weighted approach to investigate whether EVAS was associated with lower all-cause mortality after aneurysm repair. METHODS: We compared 333 patients in the Nellix United States Investigational Device Exemption trial to 15,431 controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2016 after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption (hemodialysis, creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL, or rupture). We calculated propensity scores and applied inverse probability weighting to compare risk adjusted medium-term survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: After weighting, patients treated with the Nellix EVAS system experienced higher 3-year survival than controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (93% vs. 88%, respectively). This corresponded to a 41% lower risk of mortality for EVAS compared with EVAR (HR 0.59 [0.38-0.92], P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the association between EVAS and higher survival was strongest in the subgroup of patients with aneurysms over 5.5 cm (P for interaction < 0.001). In this subgroup, EVAS patients experienced half the rate of mortality as those patients treated with EVAR, with 3-year survival of 92% compared with 86% (HR 0.5 [0.3-0.9], P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this select group of patients, EVAS was associated with higher medium-term survival than traditional EVAR. Although issues with the device have recently surfaced, this exploratory analysis shows that the concept of sac sealing may hold promise. Further study is needed to confirm this finding and determine whether EVAS is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular events.
BACKGROUND:Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Periprocedural risks are low, and cardiovascular events are the principle determinants of long-term survival. Recently, the concept of endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) has been introduced into clinical investigation. In previous cohort studies, EVAS has been associated with a lower all-cause mortality than expected despite device issues. We used a propensity weighted approach to investigate whether EVAS was associated with lower all-cause mortality after aneurysm repair. METHODS: We compared 333 patients in the Nellix United States Investigational Device Exemption trial to 15,431 controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2014 and 2016 after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption (hemodialysis, creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL, or rupture). We calculated propensity scores and applied inverse probability weighting to compare risk adjusted medium-term survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: After weighting, patients treated with the NellixEVAS system experienced higher 3-year survival than controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (93% vs. 88%, respectively). This corresponded to a 41% lower risk of mortality for EVAS compared with EVAR (HR 0.59 [0.38-0.92], P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the association between EVAS and higher survival was strongest in the subgroup of patients with aneurysms over 5.5 cm (P for interaction < 0.001). In this subgroup, EVASpatients experienced half the rate of mortality as those patients treated with EVAR, with 3-year survival of 92% compared with 86% (HR 0.5 [0.3-0.9], P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this select group of patients, EVAS was associated with higher medium-term survival than traditional EVAR. Although issues with the device have recently surfaced, this exploratory analysis shows that the concept of sac sealing may hold promise. Further study is needed to confirm this finding and determine whether EVAS is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular events.
Authors: Seamus C Harrison; Andrew J Winterbottom; Patrick A Coughlin; Paul D Hayes; Jonathan R Boyle Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Jeffrey P Carpenter; Robert Cuff; Clifford Buckley; Christopher Healey; Sajjad Hussain; Michel M P J Reijnen; Jose Trani; Dittmar Böckler Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: C Baigent; A Keech; P M Kearney; L Blackwell; G Buck; C Pollicino; A Kirby; T Sourjina; R Peto; R Collins; R Simes Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-09-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Dustin Thomas; David Anderson; Edward Hulten; Fiora McRae; Shane Ellis; Jamil A Malik; Todd C Villines; Ahmad M Slim Journal: Vascular Date: 2014-08-18 Impact factor: 1.285
Authors: M N A Abdul Rahman; Junaid Alam Khan; Fayyaz Ali Khan Mazari; Katherine Mockford; Peter Thomas McCollum; Ian Clifford Chetter Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Dittmar Böckler; Andrew Holden; Matt Thompson; Paul Hayes; Dainis Krievins; Jean-Paul P M de Vries; Michel M P J Reijnen Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Thomas F X O'Donnell; Sarah E Deery; Laura T Boitano; Jeffrey J Siracuse; Marc L Schermerhorn; Salvatore T Scali; Andres Schanzer; Robert T Lancaster; Virendra I Patel Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Aleksandra C Zoethout; Iris Hochstenbach; Maarten J van der Laan; Jean-Paul P M de Vries; Michel M P J Reijnen; Clark J Zeebregts Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 3.089