Cargando…

The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system: current perspectives

BACKGROUND: The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) system is a novel approach for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EVAS in the management of patients with AAA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and bibliographic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Choo, Xin Y, Hajibandeh, Shahab, Hajibandeh, Shahin, Antoniou, George A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6385777/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30858738
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S155300
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) system is a novel approach for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EVAS in the management of patients with AAA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and bibliographic reference lists to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes in patients with asymptomatic, non-ruptured AAA treated with EVAS with the Nellix device. We pooled dichotomous outcome data using random-effects models. RESULTS: We identified 14 single-arm observational studies, reporting a total of 1,510 patients. The pooled estimate of technical success was 99% (95% CI =98–100; heterogeneity: P=0.869, I(2)=0%). Adjunctive procedures were carried out in 39% (95% CI =19–63; heterogeneity: P<0.0001, I(2)=88%). Two cases of aneurysm rupture were reported within 30 days of treatment (0.7%, 95% CI =0.3–1.6; heterogeneity: P=0.923, I(2)=0%) and another five cases of rupture occurred during follow-up (0.8%, 95% CI =0.4–1.6; heterogeneity: P=0.958, I(2)=0%). The pooled estimates of early (within 30 days) and late (during follow-up) type I endoleak were 2.8 % (95% CI =1.8–4.2; heterogeneity: P=0.254, I(2)=18%) and 1.9% (95% CI =1.3–2.8; heterogeneity: P=0.887, I(2)=0%), respectively. Sac enlargement was noted in 3.1% (95% CI =1.8–5.4; heterogeneity: P=0.419, I(2)=0%) and device migration in 2.1% (95% CI =0.8–5.3; heterogeneity: P=0.004, I(2)=65%). The early and late reintervention rates were 2.7% (95% CI =1.7–4.2; heterogeneity: P=0.183, I(2)=27%) and 3.5% (95% CI =2.3–5.5; heterogeneity: P=0.061, I(2)=42%), respectively. The pooled estimate of 30-day mortality was 1.5% (95% CI =0.9–2.6; heterogeneity: P=0.559, I(2)=0%) and the pooled estimate of aneurysm-related death during follow-up was 1.0% (95% CI =0.6–1.9; heterogeneity: P=0.872, I(2)=0%). CONCLUSION: Reported outcomes of EVAS are acceptable. Type I endoleak, sac enlargement, device migration, and aneurysm rupture are recognized complications. High-level research is required to investigate potential advantages of EVAS over conventional treatments.