One-year follow-up after active aortic aneurysm sac treatment with shape memory polymer devices during endovascular aneurysm repair

Andrew Holden*, Andrew A. Hill, Manar Khashram, Jan M.M. Heyligers, Arno M. Wiersema, Paul D. Hayes, Michel M.P.J. Reijnen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

17 Downloads (Pure)


Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of treating abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sacs with polyurethane shape memory polymer (SMP) devices during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), using a technique to fully treat the target lumen after endograft placement (aortic flow volume minus the endograft volume). SMP devices self-expand in the sac to form a porous scaffold that supports thrombosis throughout its structure. Methods: Two identical prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies were conducted in New Zealand and the Netherlands. The study population was adult candidates for elective EVAR of an infrarenal AAA (diameter of ≥55 mm in men and ≥50 mm in women). Key exclusion criteria were an inability to adequately seal a common iliac artery aneurysm, patent sac feeding vessels of >4 mm, and a target lumen volume of <20 mL or >135 mL. Target lumen volumes were estimated by subtracting endograft volumes from preprocedural imaging-based flow lumen volumes. SMP devices were delivered immediately after endograft deployment via a 6F sheath jailed in a bowed position in the sac. The primary efficacy end point was technical success, defined as filling the actual target lumen volume with fully expanded SMP at the completion of the procedure. Secondary efficacy outcome measures during follow-up were the change in sac volume and diameter, rate of type II endoleak and type I or III endoleaks, and the rate of open repair and related reinterventions, with data collection at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year (to date). Baseline sac volumes and diameters for change in sac size analyses were determined from 30-day imaging studies. Baseline and follow-up volumes were normalized by subtraction of the endograft volume. Results: Of 34 patients treated with SMP devices and followed per protocol, 33 patients were evaluable at 1 year. Preprocedural aneurysm volume was 181.4 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 150.7-212.1 mL) and preprocedural aneurysm diameter was 60.8 mm (95% CI, 57.8-63.9 mm). The target lumen volume was 56.3 mL (95% CI, 46.9-65.8 mL). Technical success was 100% and the ratio of SMP fully expanded volume to estimated target lumen volume was 1.4 ± 0.3. Baseline normalized sac volume and diameter were 140.7 mL (95% CI, 126.6-154.9 mL) and 61.0 mm (95% CI, 59.7-62.3 mm). The adjusted mean percentage change in normalized volume at 1 year was −28.8% (95% CI, −35.3 to −22.3%; P < .001). The adjusted mean change in sac diameter at 1 year was −5.9 mm (95% CI, −7.5 to −4.4 mm; P < .001). At 1 year, 81.8% of patients (95% CI, 64.5%-93.0%) achieved a ≥10% decrease in normalized volume and 57.6% of patients (95% CI, 39.2%-74.5%) achieved a ≥5 mm decrease in diameter. No device- or study procedure-related major adverse events occurred through 1 year after the procedure. Conclusions: Treatment of AAA sacs with SMP devices during EVAR resulted in significant sac volume and diameter regression at 1 year with an acceptable safety profile in this prospective study.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1090-1100.e4
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
Issue number5
Early online date5 Jan 2024
Publication statusPublished - May 2024


  • Abdominal aortic aneurysm
  • Aneurysm regression
  • Aortic endograft
  • Endovascular aneurysm repair
  • Shape memory polymer


Dive into the research topics of 'One-year follow-up after active aortic aneurysm sac treatment with shape memory polymer devices during endovascular aneurysm repair'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this