Advertisement

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Volumetric Evaluation During Mid-term Follow-Up After Endovascular Sealing Using the Nellix™ Device

  • Salma El Batti
  • Mariano E. Casciaro
  • Jean-Marc Alsac
  • Christian Latremouille
  • Pierre Julia
  • Elie Mousseaux
  • Damian Craiem
Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To analyze the volumetric evolution of abdominal aortic aneurysms after endovascular sealing (EVAS) with the Nellix™ device during follow-up.

Methods

Patients who underwent elective EVAS in our institution in 2014 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative, postoperative and 1-year scans were processed. A custom software was conceived to assess semi-automated measurements of the aneurysm sac and the endograft sizes including volume, maximum diameter, sectional area and perimeter. Thrombus volume, aneurysm length, mean distance between the stents inside the polymer-filled sacs and endograft migration were also estimated. Manual maximum diameters were measured for comparison. Inter and intra-observer variability of the proposed semi-automated method was evaluated.

Results

Pre-EVAS, post-EVAS and last follow-up scans of 12 patients were finally analyzed during a mean follow-up of 17 ± 5 months. No endograft migration or endoleak were detected. During follow-up, aneurysm volume and perimeter slightly increased compared to post-EVAS scans (+ 1 and + 5%, respectively, p < 0.05). A systematic 6% enlargement of the endobag volume was also observed (range 1–15 mL, p < 0.001). Endobag maximum diameter, area and perimeter increased 4, 8, and 8%, respectively (all p < 0.01). Mean plane-by-plane distance between stents increased 4% (p < 0.05). Mean thrombus volume did not change during follow-up, although a high variability was observed. Aneurysm and thrombus volume changes were highly correlated (r = 0.93, p < 0.001). No associations were observed between aneurysm and endobag volume changes. Intra- and inter-observer variability was below 1.7 and 2.4% for diameter and volume measurements, respectively. The automated measurements of post-EVAS aneurysm diameter and volume were higher than preoperative (p < 0.05). Maximum diameters measured manually did not differ between scans.

Conclusion

Small aneurysm volume enlargement detected during a mid-term follow-up was associated with thrombus size change, whereas systematic endograft expansion resulted independent from the aortic growth. Volumetric measurements using a semi-automated method could quantify small changes in aneurysm, endograft and thrombus sizes not detected by manually defined maximal diameters.

Keywords

Abdominal aortic aneurysm Aneurysm sizing Endograft follow-up Aneurysm volume Endovascular sealing system 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the CONICET PIP Project No. 1220130100480 and the MinCyT PICT Project No. 2016-0945 from Argentina.

Funding

CONICET PIP, Grant No. 1220130100480, to Damian Craiem. MinCyT PICT Project No. 2016-0945 to Damian Craiem.

Conflict of interest

Salma El Batti, Mariano E. Casciaro, Jean-Marc Alsac, Christian Latremouille, Pierre Julia, Elie Mousseaux, and Damian Craiem declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Author contributions

Protocol/project development: SEB, MC, DC. Data collection or management: SEB, MC, DC. Data analysis, SEB, MC, DC, JMA, PJ. Manuscript writing/editing: SEB, DC, MC, JMA, EM.

References

  1. 1.
    Armon, M. P., S. W. Yusuf, S. C. Whitaker, R. H. Gregson, P. W. Wenham, and B. R. Hopkinson. Thrombus distribution and changes in aneurysm size following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 16(6):472–476, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balm, R., R. Kaatee, J. D. Blankensteijn, W. P. Mali, and B. C. Eikelboom. CT-angiography of abdominal aortic aneurysms after transfemoral endovascular aneurysm management. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 12(2):182–188, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bargellini, I., R. Cioni, P. Petruzzi, A. Pratali, V. Napoli, C. Vignali, et al. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: analysis of aneurysm volumetric changes at mid-term follow-up. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 28(4):426–433, 2005.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-004-0171-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bockler, D., A. Holden, M. Thompson, P. Hayes, D. Krievins, J. P. de Vries, et al. Multicenter Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing system experience in aneurysm sac sealing. J. Vasc. Surg. 62(2):290–298, 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2015.03.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boersen, J. T., E. Groot Jebbink, M. Versluis, C. H. Slump, D. N. Ku, J. P. de Vries, et al. Flow and wall shear stress characterization after endovascular aneurysm repair and endovascular aneurysm sealing in an infrarenal aneurysm model. J. Vasc. Surg. 66(6):1844–1853, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2016.10.077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boersen, J. T., R. C. Schuurmann, C. H. Slump, D. A. van den Heuvel, M. M. Reijnen, T. G. ter Mors, et al. Changes in aortoiliac anatomy after elective treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms with a sac anchoring endoprosthesis. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 51(1):56–62, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.08.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carpenter, J. P., R. Cuff, C. Buckley, C. Healey, S. Hussain, M. M. Reijnen, et al. Results of the Nellix system investigational device exemption pivotal trial for endovascular aneurysm sealing. J Vasc Surg. 63(1):23–31, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2015.07.096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casciaro, M., M. Alfonso, D. Craiem, J. Alsac, S. El-Batti, and R. Armentano. Predicting the effect on pulse wave reflection of different endovascular repair techniques in abdominal aortic aneurysm using 1D patient-specific models. Health Technol. 6(3):173–179, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Casciaro, M. E., S. El-Batti, G. Chironi, A. Simon, E. Mousseaux, R. L. Armentano, et al. Deformable surface model for the evaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with an endovascular sealing system. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 44:1381–1391, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-015-1446-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaikof, E. L., J. D. Blankensteijn, P. L. Harris, G. H. White, C. K. Zarins, V. M. Bernhard, et al. Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 35(5):1048–1060, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czermak, B. V., G. Fraedrich, M. F. Schocke, I. E. Steingruber, P. Waldenberger, R. Perkmann, et al. Serial CT volume measurements after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J. Endovasc. Ther. 8(4):380–389, 2001.  https://doi.org/10.1177/152660280100800407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Donayre, C. E., C. K. Zarins, D. K. Krievins, A. Holden, A. Hill, C. Calderas, et al. Initial clinical experience with a sac-anchoring endoprosthesis for aortic aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 53(3):574–582, 2011.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2010.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    England, A., F. Torella, R. K. Fisher, and R. G. McWilliams. Migration of the Nellix endoprosthesis. J. Vasc. Surg. 64(2):306–312, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2016.02.053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erbel, R., V. Aboyans, C. Boileau, E. Bossone, R. D. Bartolomeo, H. Eggebrecht, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: Document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 35(41):2873–2926, 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holden, A., J. Savlovskis, A. Winterbottom, L. H. van den Ham, A. Hill, D. Krievins, et al. Imaging after Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing: a consensus document. J. Endovasc. Ther. 23(1):7–20, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1526602815616251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kritpracha, B., H. G. Beebe, and A. J. Comerota. Aortic diameter is an insensitive measurement of early aneurysm expansion after endografting. J. Endovasc. Ther. 11(2):184–190, 2004.  https://doi.org/10.1583/03-976.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, J. T., I. N. Aziz, J. T. Lee, J. S. Haukoos, C. E. Donayre, I. Walot, et al. Volume regression of abdominal aortic aneurysms and its relation to successful endoluminal exclusion. J. Vasc. Surg. 38(6):1254–1263, 2003.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malina, M., K. Ivancev, T. A. Chuter, M. Lindh, T. Lanne, B. Lindblad, et al. Changing aneurysmal morphology after endovascular grafting: relation to leakage or persistent perfusion. J. Endovasc. Surg. 4(1):23–30, 1997. 10.1583/1074-6218(1997)004<0023:CAMAEG>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Rourke, J. Computational Geometry in C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prinssen, M., E. L. Verhoeven, H. J. Verhagen, and J. D. Blankensteijn. Decision-making in follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair based on diameter and volume measurements: a blinded comparison. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 26(2):184–187, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaikh, U., T. Y. Chan, O. Oshin, R. G. McWilliams, R. K. Fisher, A. England, et al. Changes in aortic volumes following endovascular sealing of abdominal aortic aneurysms with the Nellix Endoprosthesis. J. Endovasc. Ther. 22(6):881–885, 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1526602815607186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Truijers, M., M. F. Fillinger, K. W. Renema, S. P. Marra, L. J. Oostveen, H. A. Kurvers, et al. In-vivo imaging of changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm thrombus volume during the cardiac cycle. J. Endovasc. Ther. 16(3):314–319, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Truijers, M., J. J. Futterer, S. Takahashi, R. A. Heesakkers, J. D. Blankensteijn, and J. O. Barentsz. In vivo imaging of the aneurysm wall with MRI and a macrophage-specific contrast agent. Am. J. Roentgenol. 193(5):W437–W441, 2009.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van den Ham, L. H., A. Holden, J. Savlovskis, A. Witterbottom, K. Ouriel, and M. Reijnen. Editor’s choice: occurrence and classification of proximal type I endoleaks after EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing using the Nellix Device. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 54(6):729–736, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.09.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van den Ham, L. H., T. G. Ter Mors, J. T. Boersen, J. de Vries, P. W. Vriens, J. M. Heyligers, et al. Evolution of computed tomography imaging the first year after endovascular sealing of Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysms using the Nellix Device. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2017.07.038.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van den Ham, L. H., C. J. Zeebregts, J. P. de Vries, and M. M. Reijnen. Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using Nellix EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing. Surg. Technol. Int. 26:226–231, 2015.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Veen, R., K. van Noort, R. C. L. Schuurmann, J. Wille, C. H. Slump, and J. P. M. de Vries. Determination of stent frame displacement after endovascular aneurysm sealing. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1526602817745513.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wever, J. J., J. D. Blankensteijn, M. M. W. P. Th, and B. C. Eikelboom. Maximal aneurysm diameter follow-up is inadequate after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 20(2):177–182, 2000.  https://doi.org/10.1053/ejvs.1999.1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    White, R. A., C. E. Donayre, I. Walot, J. Woody, N. Kim, and G. E. Kopchok. Computed tomography assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm morphology after endograft exclusion. J. Vasc. Surg. 33(2 Suppl):S1–S10, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yuksel, C., S. Schaefer, and J. Keyser. Parameterization and applications of Catmull–Rom curves. Comput. Aided Des. 43(7):747–755, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular SurgeryHôpital Européen Georges PompidouParisFrance
  2. 2.Unité de Recherche en DéveloppementImagerie et Anatomie (URDIA) EA 4465 Université Paris DescartesParisFrance
  3. 3.Instituto de Medicina Traslacional, Trasplante y Bioingeniería (IMeTTyB)Universidad Favaloro-CONICET Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Unité Inserm U970-PARCC Equipe 6Université Paris DescartesParisFrance
  5. 5.Cardiovascular ImagingHôpital Européen Georges PompidouParisFrance

Personalised recommendations