Mortality analysis of endovascular aneurysm sealing versus endovascular aneurysm repair

Vinamr Rastogi, Thomas F.X. O'Donnell, Yoel Solomon, Rens R.B. Varkevisser, Priya B. Patel, Jeffrey P. Carpenter, Jorg L. de Bruin, Michel M.P.J. Reijnen, Hence J.M. Verhagen, Marc L. Schermerhorn*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Downloads (Pure)


Background: Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), using the Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system, has been associated with high reintervention and migration rates. However, prior reports have suggested that EVAS might be related to a lower all-cause mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In the present study, we examined the 5-year all-cause mortality trends after EVAS and EVAR. Methods: We compared the 333 EVAS patients in the EVAS-1 Nellix U.S. investigational device exemption trial with 16,497 infrarenal EVAR controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative, treated between 2014 and 2016, after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption trial (ie, hemodialysis, creatinine >2.0 mg/dL, rupture). As a secondary analysis, we stratified the patients by aneurysm diameter (<5.5 cm and ≥5.5 cm). We calculated propensity scores after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic characteristics and applied inverse probability weighting to compare the risk-adjusted long-term mortality using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Results: After weighting, the EVAS group had experienced similar 5-year mortality compared with the controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (EVAS vs EVAR, 18% vs 14%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.7; P = .70). The subgroup analysis demonstrated that for patients with an aneurysm diameter of <5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with higher 5-year mortality compared with EVAR (19% vs 11%; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7; P = .013). In patients with an aneurysm diameter of ≥5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years (2-year mortality: HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.62; P = .002). However, compared with EVAR, EVAS was associated with higher mortality between 2 and 5 years (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .005), with no mortality difference at 5 years (18% vs 17%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .46). Conclusions: Within the overall population, EVAS was associated with similar 5-year mortality compared with EVAR. EVAS was associated with higher mortality for those with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm). For those with larger aneurysms (≥5.5 cm), EVAS was initially associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years, although this advantage was lost thereafter, with higher mortality after 2 years. Future studies are required to evaluate the specific causes of death and to elucidate the potential beneficial mechanism behind sac obliteration that leads to this potential initial survival benefit. This could help guide the development of future grafts with better proximal fixation and sealing that also incorporate sac obliteration.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)731-740.e1
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
Issue number3
Early online date18 Oct 2022
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2023


  • Abdominal aortic aneurysm
  • Endovascular aneurysm repair
  • Endovascular aneurysm sealing
  • Mortality
  • Survival
  • n/a OA procedure

Cite this