Serious Failure Modes After EVAR Are Device Specific

Abstract

Objectives:

Type I and III endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can lead to catastrophic events that require major re-interventions. We reviewed our experience with aortic endograft re-interventions for type I and III endoleaks and other serious failures among different devices.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed patients with a prior EVAR who underwent open conversion (OC) or major endovascular intervention (MEI) (re-lining, cuff/limb extension, parallel graft) for type I/III endoleaks at our institution from 2002 to 2019. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, re-interventions, and outcomes were collected.

Results:

A total of 229 patients (194 men) underwent re-interventions for type I and III endoleaks after EVAR (90 OC, 139 MEI) for devices implanted between 1997 and 2019. Average age at re-intervention was 78±8.5 years. A total of 135 (59%) were implanted at our institution, whereas 93 (41%) were referred. Median time to re-intervention was 4 years with 25% to 75% interquartile range (IQR) of 2.2–6.6 years. There was no significant difference in baseline demographics or type of re-interventions (OC/MEI) between device types. 42/229 (18%) presented with ruptured aneurysms, 20/229 (9%) were symptomatic, whereas the rest presented with asymptomatic radiographic findings. Type 1A endoleak was present in 146/229 (63.8%—72 with proximal migration), type IB in 46/229 (20.1%), type IIIA in 37/229 (16.6%), type IIIB in 15/229 (6.5%), and persistent aneurysm sac growth with no radiographic evidence of an endoleak in 6/229 (2.6%). Devices included most commercial products: AFX, Excluder, AneuRx, Ancure, Endurant, and Zenith. A smaller number of investigational devices accounted for the rest. Type 1A endoleak was the most common indication for re-intervention among all devices except for AFX and ancure devices, proximal migration was a frequent presentation with AneuRx. AFX devices more frequently presented with a type III and ancure devices more frequently presented with a type IB endoleak.

Conclusions:

Serious failure modes after EVAR differ between endografts and occur throughout the follow-up period. This is important to guide targeted interrogation of surveillance studies and follow-up schedules, even for discontinued devices, as well as comparisons between various series and estimation of EVAR failure rates.

Clinical Impact

Surveillance after EVAR is critical for long term success of the repair, understanding of the differential modes of failure of every graft available is important in the longitudinal evaluation of these endografts. Equally important is the understanding of the modes of failure of legacy endografts that are no longer on the market but still being followed, in order to be able to tailor a surveillance regiemn and the evntual repair if needed.

Keywords

aneurysm EVAR endoleak

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Suckow

Goodney

Columbo

, et al. National trends in open surgical, endovascular, and branched-fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare patients. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(6):1690–1697.e1.

Patel

Sweeting

Powell

, et al. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in 15-years’ follow-up of the UK endovascular aneurysm repair trial 1 (EVAR trial 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10058):2366–2374.

Lal

Zhou

, et al. Predictors and outcomes of endoleaks in the Veterans Affairs Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) Trial of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62(6):1394–1404.

Brewster

Jones

Chung

, et al. Long-term outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: the first decade. Ann Surg. 2006;244(3):426–438.

Buck

Herrmann

, et al. Risk factors and consequences of persistent type II endoleaks. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63(4):895–901.

van Marrewijk

Buth

Harris

, et al. Significance of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: The EUROSTAR experience. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(3):461–473.

Lowe

Hansrani

Madan

, et al. Type iiib endoleak after elective endovascular aneurysm repair: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;61(3):308–316.

Major

Long

Eden

, et al. Long-term outcomes and interventions of postoperative type 1a endoleak following elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2021;75:136–143.e1.

Joo

Lee

Chang

, et al. Late open conversion after endovascular abdominal aortic repair: a 20-year experience. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;60(1):73–80.

10.

Moulakakis

Dalainas

Mylonas

, et al. Conversion to open repair after endografting for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a review of causes, incidence, results, and surgical techniques of reconstruction. J Endovasc Ther. 2010;17(6):694–702.

11.

Mohapatra

Robinson

Malak

, et al. Increasing use of open conversion for late complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69(6):1766–1775.

12.

Scali

McNally

Feezor

, et al. Elective endovascular aortic repair conversion for type Ia endoleak is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality compared with primary juxtarenal aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(2):286–294.e1.

13.

Turney

Steenberge

Lyden

, et al. Late graft explants in endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59(4):886–893.

14.

Naughton

Garcia-Toca

Rodriguez

, et al. Endovascular treatment of delayed type 1 and 3 endoleaks. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34(4):751–757.

15.

Kwon

Dimuzio

Salvatore

, et al. Incidence of stent graft failure from type IIIB endoleak in contemporary endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71(2):645–653.

16.

Maleux

Poorteman

Laenen

, et al. Incidence, etiology, and management of type III endoleak after endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66(4):1056–1064.

17.

FDA. Update on risk of type III endoleaks with use of Endologix AFX endovascular AAA graft systems—FDA safety communication. 2022. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-endologix-afx-endovascular-aaa-graft-systems-and-risk-type-iii-endoleak-fda-safety

18.

Skibba

Evans

Greenfield

, et al. Management of late main-body aortic endograft component uncoupling and type IIIa endoleak encountered with the Endologix Powerlink and AFX platforms. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62(4):868–875.

19.

Lemmon

Aumiller

Dalsing

, et al. Failure mode analysis of the Endologix endograft. J Vasc Surg. 2015;64(3):571–576.

20.

van Lammeren

Fioole

Waasdorp

, et al. Long-term follow-up of secondary interventions after endovascular aneurysm repair with the AneuRx endoprosthesis: a single-center experience. J Endovasc Ther. 2010;17(3):408–415.

21.

van Herwaarden

van de Pavoordt

Waasdorp

, et al. Long-term single-center results with AneuRx endografts for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2007;14(3):307–317.

22.

Sampaio

Panneton

Mozes

, et al. AneuRx device migration: incidence, risk factors, and consequences. Ann Vasc Surg. 2005;19(2):178–185.

23.

Antoniou

Juszczak

Nasr

, et al. Prognosis review and time-to-event data meta-analysis of endovascular aneurysm repair outside versus within instructions for use of aortic endograft devices. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71(4):1415–1431.e15.

24.

Hwang

Park

Kim

, et al. Reintervention rate after open surgery and endovascular repair for nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;43:134–143.

25.

Herman

Charbonneau

Hongku

, et al. Any nonadherence to instructions for use predicts graft-related adverse events in patients undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(1):126–133.

26.

Zarkowsky

Sorber

Ramirez

, et al. Aortic neck IFU violations during EVAR for ruptured infrarenal aortic aneurysms are associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Ann Vasc Surg. 2021;75:12–21.