The Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system: current perspectives
Authors Choo XY, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Antoniou GA
Received 9 October 2018
Accepted for publication 12 January 2019
Published 19 February 2019 Volume 2019:12 Pages 65—79
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser
Xin Y Choo,1 Shahab Hajibandeh,1 Shahin Hajibandeh,1 George A Antoniou1,2
1Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Royal Oldham Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Manchester, UK; 2Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
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, I2=0%). Adjunctive procedures were carried out in 39% (95% CI =19–63; heterogeneity: P<0.0001, I2=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, I2=0%) and another five cases of rupture occurred during follow-up (0.8%, 95% CI =0.4–1.6; heterogeneity: P=0.958, I2=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, I2=18%) and 1.9% (95% CI =1.3–2.8; heterogeneity: P=0.887, I2=0%), respectively. Sac enlargement was noted in 3.1% (95% CI =1.8–5.4; heterogeneity: P=0.419, I2=0%) and device migration in 2.1% (95% CI =0.8–5.3; heterogeneity: P=0.004, I2=65%). The early and late reintervention rates were 2.7% (95% CI =1.7–4.2; heterogeneity: P=0.183, I2=27%) and 3.5% (95% CI =2.3–5.5; heterogeneity: P=0.061, I2=42%), respectively. The pooled estimate of 30-day mortality was 1.5% (95% CI =0.9–2.6; heterogeneity: P=0.559, I2=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, I2=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.
Keywords: endovascular aneurysm sealing, Nellix, aortic aneurysm, EVAS, AAA, endovascular aneurysm repair, EVAR
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]