Is a Type II Endoleak after EVAR a Harbinger of Risk? Causes and Outcome of Open Conversion and Aneurysm Rupture during Follow-up

Direct sac puncture versus transarterial embolization of type II endoleaks: An evaluation and comparison of outcomes

Purpose To determine the outcomes of type II endoleak embolization with aneurysm sac obliteration and whether the approach - direct sac puncture or transarterial - affects outcome. Methods A retrospective review of patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repairs and subsequent type II endoleak embolization over 10 years was performed. Twenty-three patients (median age: 73 years, range: 40-88 years) underwent 35 embolizations. Embolization was performed with the goal of obliterating both the endoleak sac and feeding vessels. Embolization agents used include cyanoacrylate glue only (48%), glue and coils (36%), coils only (13%), and other (3%). Results Mean follow-up was 21.8 months. Patients underwent an average of 1.5 embolizations, with 35% requiring more than one. Technical success rate was 89%. Freedom from aneurysm sac expansion was achieved in 91%. Freedom from type II endoleak was accomplished in 70%. There were no ruptured aneurysms during the follow-up period. Direct sac puncture and transarterial approaches had similar incidences of aneurysm sac growth ( p = 0.74), persistent type II endoleak ( p = 0.32), and complications ( p = 0.64). However, direct sac puncture had significantly shorter fluoroscopy ( p < 0.001) and total procedure times ( p < 0.001) than transarterial embolizations. Conclusion Direct sac puncture and transarterial embolization of type II endoleak with aneurysm sac obliteration are similarly effective for the prevention of aneurysm sac growth. However, direct sac puncture is our preferred approach given its significantly shorter fluoroscopic and procedural times.

Preoperative Inferior Mesenteric Artery Embolization: A Valid Method to Reduce the Rate of Type II Endoleak after EVAR?

BACKGROUND

Type II endoleak is the most commonly encountered endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Some have advocated preoperative inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) embolization as a valid method for reducing the incidence of this endoleak, but controversies exist. We sought to demonstrate the impact of IMA embolization using a meta-analysis of currently available studies combined with our own experience.

METHODS

We conducted an institutional review board-approved, retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing IMA embolization before EVAR between the years 2010 and 2015 and used as a control a similar group of patients with patent IMA. We divided patients from our own experience and 5 other studies into 2 groups: those who did not undergo IMA embolization (control) before EVAR and those who did. Rates of type II endoleaks, aneurysm sac regression, and secondary interventions were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 620 patients from 6 studies were analyzed, including 258 patients who underwent an attempted IMA embolization before EVAR with a cumulative success rate of 99.2% (range, 93.8% to 100%). There was 1 fatality associated with IMA embolization. A meta-analysis showed that preoperative IMA embolization protected against type II endoleaks compared to the control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.31 [0.17-0.57]; P < 0.001, I² = 43%). Furthermore, the rate of secondary intervention was significantly lower in the treatment group (OR, 0.12 [0.004-0.36]; P < 0.001, I² = 0%). After IMA embolization, type II endoleak resulted from patent lumbar arteries in all 62 patients with persistent endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative embolization of the IMA protects against the development of type II endoleaks and secondary interventions and may potentially lead to a rapid aneurysm sac regression. The procedure can be performed with a high technical success rate and minimal complications and should be considered in patients with IMA >3 mm before EVAR. A randomized trial, however, is required to clearly delineate the clinical significance of this technique.

Effects of postimplantation systemic inflammatory response on long-term clinical outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm

The aim of this study was to determine the association between postimplantation syndrome (PIS) and long-term clinical outcomes after elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of an abdominal aortic aneurysm.In this single-center, observational cohort study, a total of 204 consecutive patients undergoing EVAR were included. Primary outcome was long-term mortality from any cause; secondary outcomes included long-term mortality, systemic or implant-related complications, and secondary therapeutic procedures.The diagnosis of PIS was established in 64 patients (31.4%). PIS patients were more likely to receive woven polyester endografts and have a longer postoperative hospital stay and lower incidence of type II endoleaks. In multivariate analysis, PIS was significantly associated with a decreased risk of developing type II endoleaks (P = 0.044). During follow-up period of 44 months, clinical outcomes showed no significant differences in mortality (P = 0.876), systemic (P = 0.668), or implant-related complications (P = 0.847), although rates of secondary therapeutic procedure were significantly higher in non-PIS patients (P = 0.037). The groups had similar rates of overall survival (P = 0.761) and other clinical outcomes (P = 0.562).Patients with and without PIS had similar long-term overall survival rates and other clinical outcomes. PIS was beneficial in preventing type II endoleaks during postoperative period.

One Year Outcome Using Newer Generation Endografts: A National Multicenter Study on Real Word Practice

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the 1 year outcomes following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with the use of newer generation endografts.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted of prospectively collected multicenter data from 385 EVARs. Newer endografts were defined as those introduced after 2004. Patients' demographics and comorbidities, type of operation, and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) morphological characteristics were analyzed. Computer tomography was performed 1 month and 1 year post-EVAR.

RESULTS

Mean age of the patients was 71.3 years; in 335 cases the intervention was elective. The mean AAA sac, neck diameter, and length were 57.15, 24.5, and 28.97 mm, respectively. Ninety-four endoleaks were recorded in 92 patients (25%), including 11 type 1a (T1aE), 3 type 1b, and 78 type 2 (T2E) endoleaks. On logistic regression analysis, neck diameter >30 mm (P = 0.032) and initial AAA sac diameter >55 mm (P = 0.031) were associated with T1aE. No association was found with T2E. Overall, 107 (27%) patients had sac expansion at 1 year associated with the presence of T2E (P = 0.019). No association was observed between T1aE or T2E and specific endograft.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer generation endografts show very satisfactory performance even in difficult anatomies. T1aE was associated with initial sac and neck diameter, while AAA sac expansion was associated with the presence of T2E.

Strategies to Reduce the Rate of Type II Endoleaks: Routine Intraoperative Embolization of the Inferior Mesenteric Artery and Thrombin Injection into the Aneurysm Sac

Purpose:

To determine whether the rate of type II endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be decreased using a branch vessel management strategy.

Methods:

The branch vessel management strategy consisted of routine intraoperative embolization of all patent inferior mesenteric arteries (IMA) and thrombin injection into all aneurysm sacs that showed branch vessel filling on the “sacogram.” Sixty-nine consecutive patients (65 men; median age 77 years, range 58–90) undergoing elective EVAR since the protocol was introduced in July 2003 were included; 69 consecutive patients (65 men; median age 76 years, range 60–90) who underwent EVAR immediately prior to the protocol were used as controls. Primary outcome measures were type II endoleak rates and secondary intervention rates.

Results:

The median follow-up was 36 months (range 0.25–72) for the pre-protocol group and 12 months (range 0.25–24) for the post-protocol group. The type II endoleak rate for the pre-protocol group was 26% compared to 14% for the post-protocol group (p=0.14). This difference was not significant on Kaplan-Meir analysis (p=0.23). The 18 type II endoleaks in the pre-protocol group included 14 lumbar endoleaks, 1 IMA endoleak, and 3 combined lumbar and IMA endoleaks. The 10 type II endoleaks in the post-protocol group included 9 lumbar artery endoleaks and 1 IMA endoleak. Ten (14%) patients in the pre-protocol group required 15 interventions for type II endoleak compared to 2 (3%) in the post-protocol group who required 3 secondary procedures for type II endoleak (p=0.03). This difference was not significant on Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=0.22). Of the 12 interventions for lumbar endoleaks, only 5 (42%) were successful.

Conclusion:

Although there was a trend toward lower type II endoleak rates with our branch vessel management strategy, this did not reach statistical significance. Our data also indicated that there is a high incidence of lumbar endoleaks, and they are difficult to treat. Therefore, we believe there should be ongoing research into means to prevent lumbar endoleaks.

Open Surgical Treatment of Aneurysmal Sac Expansion following Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair: Solution for an Unresolved Clinical Dilemma

The advantages of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are probably related to the avoidance of the three major physiological insults associated with open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair: laparotomy, aortic cross-clamping and ischemia reperfusion injury. Continuing aneurysm expansion indicates a failure to exclude the AAA from the circulation. We describe our experience with open surgery of post-EVAR sac expansion. A consecutive series of 68 EVAR patients was followed up. Endovascular and minimally invasive procedures were the initial treatment option. Failure of these attempts to curtail AAA sac expansion or type 2 large endoleaks (EL) resulted in opening of the aneurysm sac. The procedure includes positioning of a deflated occlusion balloon proximal to the stent graft (SG). Laparotomy with opening of the eneurysm sac was then performed. The thrombus was removed and backbleeding vessels oversewn. The aneurysm sac was then plicated over the SG. Four patients (5.9%) were diagnosed as having either persistent large type 2 EL or sac enlargement. In all patients the procedure was accomplished successfully. One patient died from acute myocardial infarction perioperatively. Three patients recovered uneventfully and follow-up computed tomography confirmed the absence of endoleak and a disappearance of the AAA. We believe that whenever EVAR fails to exclude the aneurysm from the circulation, open exploration without graft replacement should be considered.

A multi-institutional survey of interventional radiology for type II endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair: questionnaire results from the Japanese Society of Endoluminal Metallic Stents and Grafts in Japan

PURPOSE

To investigate the current status of interventional radiology (IR) procedures for a type II endoleak (T2EL) in Japan, and to identify the technical aspects that affect treatment results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective survey was conducted by distributing questionnaires to 25 institutions. The eligibility criteria were endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) performed using commercial stent grafts and IR performed for T2EL between January 2007 and December 2013. Technical success was defined as disappearance of the EL on digital subtraction angiography immediately after embolization, and imaging success was defined as no EL on contrast-enhanced computed tomography within 6 months. Statistical comparisons of the number of involved branches, embolization level, embolic material, and changes in aneurysm size were made between the imaging success and imaging failure groups. The technical and imaging success rates were also compared between the initial therapy and repeat groups.

RESULTS

A total of 166 cases were investigated. Initial therapy was performed in 147 cases (88.6 %), with repeat therapy in 19 cases (11.4 %). Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) was used most frequently, in 161 cases (97 %), with direct puncture (DP) used in 5 cases (3 %). Both coil embolization for the branches and NBCA embolization for the sac were frequently chosen. The technical success rate was 83.2 % (TAE group), and the imaging success rate was 46.5 % (TAE + DP groups). Branch + sac embolization was performed more frequently in the imaging success group. There was no significant difference in the number of involved branches or embolic material between the imaging success and imaging failure groups. Enlargement of the aneurysm was more frequently seen in the imaging failure group. There were no significant differences in the technical success and imaging success rates between the initial therapy and repeat groups.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of a multi-institutional questionnaire survey of IR procedures for T2EL after EVAR in Japan that was conducted to determine the current status. Enlargement of aneurysm size after embolization was more frequently seen in the imaging failure group. It is important to embolize both branch and sac to achieve imaging success, regardless of embolic material. Long-term outcomes need to be investigated.

Outcomes of type II endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair: a single-center, retrospective study

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine incidence and outcomes of type II endoleaks (T2E) after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of procedural angiograms, computed tomography angiography, and medical records of 202 patients who underwent EVAR with the Gore Excluder stent graft was performed to determine presence and outcomes of T2E.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time for 163 patients meeting inclusion criteria [136 males (83%)] was 24.7 months (range=0.5-85.2 months). T2E occurred in 66/163 patients (40.5%). Aneurysm sac size was unchanged in 32/66 patients (48.5%), decreased in 22/66 (33.3%), and increased in 12/66 (18.2%). No aneurysm ruptures, conversion to open repair, or aneurysm-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

T2E are a common occurrence after EVAR, often with benign outcome. However, routine surveillance should be performed, particularly in patients with persistent endoleak or sac growth.

Predictors and outcomes of endoleaks in the Veterans Affairs Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) Trial of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The Veterans Affairs Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) Trial of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms study was a randomized controlled trial comparing open vs endovascular repair (EVAR) in standard-risk patients with infrarenal aortic aneurysms. The analysis reported here identifies characteristics, risk factors, and long-term outcome of endoleaks in patients treated with EVAR in the OVER cohort.

METHODS

The OVER trial enrolled 881 patients, of whom 439 received successful EVAR. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for endoleaks and secondary interventions. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, longitudinal plots, and generalized linear mixed models methods were used to describe time to endoleak detection, resolution, or death.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 6.2 ± 2.4 years, 135 patients (30.5%) developed 187 endoleaks. Four patients with EVAR went on to rupture; these four patients did not all have an endoleak. Mortality between patients who did and did not develop endoleaks was not significantly different. The 187 endoleaks included 12% type I, 76% type II, 3% type III, 3% type IV, and 6% indeterminate. Patient demographics and vascular risk factors were not associated with endoleak development. The presence of endoleaks resulted in an increase in aneurysm diameter over time (P < .0001). Fifty-three percent of endoleaks resolved spontaneously, and 31.9% received secondary interventions. The initial aneurysm size independently predicted a need for secondary interventions (P < .0003). Delayed type II endoleaks (detected >1 year after EVAR) were associated with aneurysm enlargement compared with the early counterpart. There was no difference in aneurysm size or length of survival between type II and other types of endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

We present one of the most comprehensive and longest follow-up analyses of patients treated with aortic endografts. Endoleaks were common and negatively affected aneurysm diameter reduction. Delayed type II endoleaks were associated with late aneurysm diameter enlargement. Endoleaks and aneurysm diameter enlargement were not associated with excess mortality compared with those without these features.

Resultados em longo prazo de embolização de endoleaks tipo II

Resumo Contexto Endoleaks tipo II são frequentes após o reparo endovascular de aneurismas de aorta. Objetivo O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar o sucesso da embolização de endoleaks tipo II utilizando diferentes técnicas e materiais. Métodos Entre 2003 e 2015, 31 pacientes foram submetidos a embolização de endoleak tipo II, totalizando 41 procedimentos. Esses procedimentos foram conduzidos por acesso translombar, acesso femoral ou uma combinação de ambos, utilizando Onyx®18, Onyx®34, coils, plugue vascular Amplatzer® e trombina como material emboligênico. Sucesso foi definido como ausência de reintervenção. O teste de qui-quadrado e o teste exato de Fisher foram utilizados para a análise estatística. Resultados O tempo médio entre a correção do aneurisma de aorta e a embolização foi de 14 meses. Quinze (36%) das intervenções utilizaram Onyx®18; sete (17%) utilizaram coils e Onyx®34; seis (14%) utilizaram Onyx®34; quatro (10%) utilizaram coils e Onyx®18; quatro (10%) usaram Onyx®18 e Onyx®34; e três (7%) usaram coils e trombina; um (2%) usou coils e um (2%) usou Amplatzer®. Onze pacientes (35%) necessitaram de reintervenção. A taxa de sucesso foi de 71,43% (10) para os pacientes com as artérias lombares como fonte do endoleak, 80% (8) quando a fonte era a artéria mesentérica inferior e 40% (2) quando havia combinação de ambas (p & 0,05). Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa com relação ao tipo de embolização, material emboligênico e tipo de reparo da aorta para a correção do aneurisma. Conclusões A terapia endovascular de endoleaks tipo II é um desafio, sendo necessária reintervenção em até 36% dos casos. A taxa de sucesso é menor quando o endoleak é nutrido pela combinação das artérias lombares e da artéria mesentérica inferior.

Type II endoleaks: challenges and solutions

Type II endoleaks are the most common endovascular complications of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR); however, there has been a divided opinion regarding their significance in EVAR. Some advocate a conservative approach unless there is clear evidence of sac expansion, while others maintain early intervention is best to prevent adverse late outcomes such as rupture. There is a lack of level-one evidence in this challenging group of patients, and due to a low event rate of complications, large numbers of patients would be required in well-designed trials to fully understand the natural history of type II endoleak. This review will discuss the imaging, management, and outcome of patients with isolated type II endoleaks following infra-renal EVAR.

Laparoscopic ligation of inferior mesenteric artery and internal iliac artery for the treatment of symptomatic type II endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair

We present a case undergoing successful laparoscopic ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and internal iliac artery (IIA) for the treatment of a symptomatic type II endoleak (T2E) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The patient presented with abdominal and back pain 1 year after EVAR. Subsequent enhanced computed tomography scan showed aneurysm sac enlargement from 60 mm to 70 mm, and digital substraction angiography revealed a T2E caused by patent IMA and right IIA. Then the patient underwent successful laparoscopic ligation of the IMA and right IIA. Postprocedural angiogram demonstrated complete resolution of the type II endoleak, and no intraoperative complications occurred. Also, there was no remaining abdominal pain or back pain after the operation.

Risk factors and consequences of persistent type II endoleaks

OBJECTIVE

Type II endoleaks are common after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), but their clinical significance remains undefined and their management controversial. We determined risk factors for type II endoleaks and associations with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We identified all EVAR patients in the Vascular Study Group of New England abdominal aortic aneurysm database. Patients were subdivided into two groups: (1) those with no endoleak or transient type II endoleak and (2) persistent type II endoleak or new type II endoleak (no endoleak at completion of case). Patients with other endoleak types and follow-up shorter than 6 months were excluded. Multivariable analysis was used to evaluate predictors of persistent or new type II endoleaks. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate predictors of reintervention and survival.

RESULTS

Two thousand three hundred sixty-seven EVAR patients had information on endoleaks: 1977 (84%) were in group 1, of which 79% had no endoleaks at all, and 21% had transient endoleaks that resolved at follow-up. The other 390 (16%) were in group 2, of which 31% had a persistent leak, and 69% had a new leak at follow-up that was not seen at the time of surgery. Group 2 was older (mean age, 75 vs 73 years; P < .001) and less likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 24% vs 34%; P < .001) or elevated creatinine levels (2.6% vs 5.3%; P = .027). Coil embolization of one or both hypogastric arteries was associated with a higher rate of persistent type II endoleaks (12 vs 8%; P = .024), as was distal graft extension (12% vs 8%; P = .008). In multivariable analysis, COPD (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.9; P = .017) was protective against persistent type II endoleak, while hypogastric artery coil embolization (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; P = .044), distal graft extension (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .025), and age ≥ 80 (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4-5.3; P = .004) were predictive. Graft type was also associated with endoleak development. Persistent type II endoleaks were predictive of postdischarge reintervention (OR, 15.3; 95% CI, 9.7-24.3; P < .001); however, they were not predictive of long-term survival (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.6; P = .477).

CONCLUSIONS

Persistent type II endoleak is associated with hypogastric artery coil embolization, distal graft extension, older age, the absence of COPD, and graft type, but not with aneurysm size. Persistent type II endoleaks are associated with an increased risk of reinterventions, but not rupture or survival. This reinforces the need for continued surveillance of patients with persistent type II endoleaks and the importance of follow-up to detect new type II endoleaks over time.

Compliance of postendovascular aortic aneurysm repair imaging surveillance

OBJECTIVE

Imaging surveillance after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical. In this study we analyzed compliance with imaging surveillance after EVAR and its effect on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 565 EVAR patients (August 2001-November 2013), who were followed using duplex ultrasound and/or computed tomography angiography. Patients were considered noncompliant (NC) if they did not have any follow-up imaging for 2 years and/or missed their first post-EVAR imaging over 6 months. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare compliance rates in EVAR patients with hostile neck (HN) vs favorable neck (FN) anatomy (according to instructions for use). A multivariate analysis was also done to correlate compliance and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Forty-three percent were compliant (7% had no follow-up imaging) and 57% were NC. The mean follow-up for compliant patients was 25.4 months (0-119 months) vs 31.4 months for NC (0-140 months). The mean number of imaging was 3.5 for compliant vs 2.6 for NC (P < .0001). Sixty-four percent were NC for HN patients vs 50% for FN patients (P = .0007). The rates of compliance at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years for all patients were 78%, 63%, 55%, 45%, and 32%; and 84%, 68%, 61%, 54%, and 40% for FN patients; and 73%, 57%, 48%, 37%, and 25% for HN patients (P = .009). The NC rate for patients with late endoleak and/or sac expansion was 58% vs 54% for patients with no endoleak (P = .51). The NC rate for patients with late reintervention was 70% vs 53% for patients with no reintervention (P = .1254). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that patients with peripheral arterial disease had an odds ratio of 1.9 (P = .0331), patients with carotid disease had an odds ratio of 2 (P = .0305), and HN patients had an odds ratio of 1.8 (P = .0007) for NC. Age and residential locations were not factors in compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, compliance of imaging surveillance after EVAR was low, particularly in HN EVAR patients, and additional studies are needed to determine if strict post-EVAR surveillance is necessary, and its effect on long-term clinical outcome.

Analysis of anatomical risk factors for persistent type II endoleaks following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using CT angiography

PURPOSE

To predict persistent type II endoleaks (pT2Es) following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms, we examined factors related to post-EVAR pT2Es.

METHODS

Eighty-four cases of EVAR were analyzed. T2Es that persisted for ≥6 months were defined as pT2Es. pT2Es flowing from an inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and lumbar artery (LA) were termed pIMA-T2Es and pLA-T2Es, respectively. The anatomical factors concerning the aneurysm, IMA and LAs were assessed in the preoperative CT angiography images. A statistical analysis was performed on the factors associated with pT2Es.

RESULTS

The incidence of pT2Es was 25 %. pT2Es were associated with postoperative changes in the aneurysm diameter. A univariate analysis showed that a sac thrombus and the number of patent side branches arising from an aneurysm were significant factors associated with pT2Es. The IMA diameters were significantly larger in cases of pIMA-T2Es. The significant factors associated with pLA-T2Es were a circumferential thrombus, the number of patent LAs and the mean LA diameter. Multivariate analyses indicated that a circumferential thrombus was a protective factor for pT2Es, whereas an IMA ≥2.6 mm and each additional LA branch ≥1.9 mm were powerful risk factors for a pT2E.

CONCLUSION

Significant anatomical factors associated with pT2E were found in this study. These factors may be useful in selecting patients for perioperative intervention.

Predictive Factors for the Development of Type 2 Endoleak Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Type 2 endoleak (T2EL) is the most common complication following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms. The management of T2ELs is controversial due to the relatively low incidence of negative outcomes when secondary intervention is avoided. Some studies challenge this practice as demonstrated by adverse events following conservative treatment of T2ELs. Evidence has shown that the preoperative computed tomographic angiogram can predict the development of T2EL based on a patient's arterial anatomy, specifically vessels associated with increased rates of post-EVAR endoleak development. Preoperative embolization of those aortic branch vessels associated with T2ELs has shown decreased rates of postoperative complications and may result in a decreased need for surveillance and reintervention.

Predictive Factors for Type II Endoleaks after Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm by Conventional Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to identify the predictive factors for the development of type II endoleaks (EL-II) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

We assessed the preoperative and postoperative computed tomography data of 308 patients who underwent EVAR between 2000 and 2012 and in 84 of whom primary or secondary EL-II occurred. The data analyzed were: demographics, number and diameter of lumbar arteries (LAs), inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), median sacral artery (MSA), accessory renal arteries (ARas), maximum diameter of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm, diameter and length of proximal aortic neck. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata software (version 12). Categorical parameters were compared between groups using chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate. Continuous variables were analyzed using Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney test as appropriate (normality studied by the Shapiro-Wilk and homoscedasticity verified using the Fisher-Snedecor test).

RESULTS

Of the 308 patients included (mean age, 73.8 ± 8.74 years), 284 (92%) were men, 61 (20%) were smokers, 113 (37%) had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 215 (70%) were taking antiplatelet. Respectively, 13, 51, 60, 103, 28, 40, 2, and 7 patients had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 patent LAs. Before surgery, 221 IMAs and 136 MSA were patent. The sources of EL-II were: LA (n = 51), IMA (n = 22), MSA (n = 1), IMA and LA (n = 8), IMA and ARa (n = 1), and unknown (n = 1). Logistic regression models adjusting for clinically relevant covariables (age, American Society of Anesthesiologists, smoking status, dyslipidemia, and diuretics) were proposed to study morphologic EL-II predictive factors, first in the entire population, and then in the more specific population for whom IMA was patent. Risk factors of occurrence EL-II were: permeability of the IMA (70 patients [83%] vs. 155 [69%], P = 0.01), IMA diameter (3.49 mm vs. 2.71 mm, P < 0.001), number of LAs patent higher than or equal to 4 (P < 0.001), the mean LA diameter greater than 2.4 mm (P < 0.001), and MSA diameter (2.28 mm vs. 1.94 mm; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show the major role of the number and diameter of the patent aortic branches in the development of EL-II. As they can result in complications increasing the morbidity and mortality after EVAR, it is relevant to identify the risk factors of their occurrence.

Open Surgical Repair Can Be One Option for the Treatment of Persistent Type II Endoleak after EVAR

PURPOSES

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an increasingly used method of repairing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). However, the treatment of persistent type II endoleak is still a controversial issue. Five cases are reported here in which we performed open surgical repair of growing aneurysm due to persistent type II endoleak.

METHOD

Totally 128 EVAR cases were retrospectively reviewed, which were operated in our hospital from April 2008 to October 2013. These cases were followed by periodical contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) after EVAR. When persistent type II endoleak caused aneurysm sac growth, we performed surgical repair method for the first line treatment. In the operation, we incised the aneurysm sac by abdominal small median incision approach and sutured lumber arteries from inside of aneurysm sac and tied inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) in addition to aneurysmorrhaphy. Contrast-enhanced CT scanning was performed in a week after open repair for the confirmation of complete treatment.

RESULTS

Five of 128 cases (3.9%) were needed to be surgically repaired because of aneurysm sac growth (>5 mm), including two ruptured AAA cases. All patients recovered uneventfully. Contrast-enhanced CT scanning performed a week after these operations showed no endoleak and intact stent grafts and reduction of the aneurysm size.

CONCLUSION

We believe open surgical repair method of persistent type II endoleak with aneurysm expansion is secure method, and can be one of the preferable options for this life threatening complication after EVAR.

Stent graft surface movement after infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: comparison of patients with and without a type 2 endoleak

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to compare multidirectional stent graft movement in patients with and without a type 2 endoleak.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case control study of patients being followed up after elective endovascular aneurysm repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The post-procedural and final follow up multislice computed tomography (MSCT) of 69 patients with and 74 without a type 2 endoleak were analyzed. Three dimensional (3D) surface models of the stent graft, delimited by landmarks using custom built software, were derived from these MSCT data. The stent graft was segmented in different zones, and the proportion of the total stent graft surface moving >9 mm between the post-procedural and the final follow up MSCT was calculated, given in percentages, and compared between groups. Changes of infrarenal neck, renal artery to stent graft distance, and freedom from stent graft related endoleaks were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall surface movement was higher in the no endoleak (18.8%, IQR 0.1-45.1%) than in the type 2 endoleak group (5.3%, IQR 0-29.7%; p = .06). Furthermore, significantly higher surface movement in the no endoleak group was found in the proximal anchoring zone (p = .04) and the distal left limb (p = .01), which was the modular limb in 81.1% (p < .01). Neck diameter increase (1.0 mm, IQR 0-3.0 mm; p < .01) and renal artery to stent graft distance difference (0 mm, IQR 0-3.3 mm; p < .01) were significantly higher in the no endoleak group. Five patients in the no endoleak and one patient in the type 2 endoleak group suffered from a stent graft related endoleak (p = .27).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of a type 2 endoleak is associated with decreased surface movement of the proximal anchoring zone and the distal modular limb of bifurcated stent grafts.

Late open conversion after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

This study determined the incidence, the surgical details, and the outcome of late open conversion after failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

METHODS

A review of English-language medical literature from 1991 to 2014 was conducted using the PubMed and EMBASE databases to find all studies involving late conversion after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm. The search identified 26 articles encompassing 641 patients (84% men; median age, 73.5 years).

RESULTS

Mean interval from the initial implantation was 38.5 ± 10.7 months. The cumulative single-center open conversion rate was 3.7%. The indications for late open conversion included endoleak in 62.4%, infection in 9.5%, migration in 5.5%, and thrombosis in 6.7%. Operations were urgent in 22.5% of the patients. The 30-day mortality was 9.1%. Mortality rates were different between elective (3.2%) and nonelective patients (29.2%). Five aneurysm-related deaths (1.5%) and two graft infections (0.6%) occurred during a median follow-up of 26.4 months (range, 5-50.2 months).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of patients with failed EVAR and without further options for endovascular salvage is growing. Endoleak remains the most important weakness of EVAR as the leading cause of late open conversion. Such procedures, although technically demanding, are associated with relatively low mortality rates when performed electively. Open repair still represents a valuable solution for many patients with failed EVAR.

CT features of early type II endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms help predict aneurysm sac enlargement

PURPOSE

To determine computed tomographic (CT) features of early type II endoleaks associated with aneurysm sac enlargement after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval was not required for this retrospective study. The authors reviewed imaging and clinical data from 56 patients (seven women, 49 men; mean age ± standard deviation, 71 years ± 7.9; age range, 52-85 years) with early type II endoleak who had undergone EVAR between December 2002 and December 2011 and who had been followed up with imaging and clinical evaluation for at least 6 months. The number and diameter of all feeding and/or draining arteries were measured, and endoleaks were classified according to their sources into simple inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), simple lumbar artery (LA), complex LA, and complex IMA-LA type II endoleaks. Volume and attenuation of the nidus were measured. Aneurysm enlargement was defined as an increase in the aneurysm volume of more than 5% during follow-up. Simple and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent clinical and imaging variables associated with aneurysm enlargement.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of the 56 patients (41%) showed aneurysm sac enlargement during follow-up (mean follow-up, 3.0 years ± 2.0). With the multivariate model, the variables that showed the strongest indicators for aneurysm sac enlargement were complex IMA-LA type II endoleak (odds ratio [OR] = 10.29, P = .004) and the diameter of the largest feeding and/or draining artery (OR = 4.55, P = .013). Patients without complex IMA-LA type II endoleak in whom the largest feeding and/or draining artery was larger than 3.8 mm and patients with a complex IMA-LA type II endoleak in whom the largest feeding and/or draining artery was larger than 2.2 mm were at high risk for aneurysm sac enlargement.

CONCLUSION

The strongest indicators for aneurysm sac enlargement are complex IMA-LA type II endoleak and the diameter of the largest feeding and/or draining artery.

Type 2 Endoleaks Post-EVAR: Current Evidence for Rupture Risk, Intervention and Outcomes of Treatment

Type 2 endoleaks (EL2) are the most commonly encountered endoleaks following EVAR. Despite two decades of experience, there remains considerable variation in the management of EL2 with controversies ranging from if to treat, when to treat and how to treat. Here, we summarise the available evidence, describe the treatment techniques available and offer guidelines for management.

CT Findings of Risk Factors for Persistent Type II Endoleak from Inferior Mesenteric Artery to Determine Indicators of Preoperative IMA Embolization

PURPOSE

To identify the computed tomography (CT) findings of persistent type II endoleak from the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) which indicate the need for preoperative IMA embolization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Included were 120 patients (96 males, 49-93 years old, mean: 77.7) who underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) between June 2007 and October 2010. The relationship between persistent type II endoleak and CT findings of IMA orifice was examined.

RESULTS

CT showed no type II endoleak from IMA in 106 patients (89%; Group N), and transient type II endoleak from IMA in 10 patients (8.3%; Group T). CT showed persistent type II endoleak from IMA in 4 patients (3.3%; Group P) and three of them underwent reintervention. Univariate Cox-Mantel test analysis indicated that stenosis (p = 0.0003) and thrombus (p = 0.043) in IMA orifice were significant factors for persistent type II endoleak. The ratios of patients with proximal IMA more than 2.5 mm diameter in Groups N, Y, and P were 26/106 (24%), 5/10 (50%) and 4/4 (100%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Indicators for embolization of IMA prior to EVAR for the prevention of type II endoleak appear to be: (1) more than 2.5 mm in diameter and (2) no stenosis due to calcification or mural thrombus in IMA orifice.

Can early computed tomography angiography after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair predict the need for reintervention in patients with type II endoleak?

PURPOSE

This study was designed to identify parameters on CT angiography (CTA) of type II endoleaks following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), which can be used to predict the subsequent need for reinterventions.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 62 patients with type II endoleak who underwent early CTA in mean 3.7 ± 1.9 days after EVAR. On the basis of follow-up examinations (mean follow-up period 911 days; range, 373-1,987 days), patients were stratified into two groups: those who did (n = 18) and those who did not (n = 44) require reintervention. CTA characteristics, such as AAA, endoleak, as well as nidus dimensions, patency of the inferior mesenteric artery, number of aortic branch vessels, and the pattern of endoleak appearance, were recorded and correlated with the clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Univariate and receiver operating characteristic curve regression analyses revealed significant differences between the two groups for the endoleak volume (surveillance group: 1391.6 ± 1427.9 mm(3); reintervention group: 3227.7 ± 2693.8 mm(3); cutoff value of 2,386 mm(3); p = 0.002), the endoleak diameter (13.6 ± 4.3 mm compared with 25.9 ± 9.6 mm; cutoff value of 19 mm; p < 0.0001), the number of aortic branch vessels (2.9 ± 1.2 compared with 4.2 ± 1.4 vessels; p = 0.001), as well as a "complex type" endoleak pattern (13.6 %, n = 6 compared with 44.4 %, n = 8; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Early CTA can predict the future need for reintervention in patients with type II endoleak. Therefore, treatment decision should be based not only on aneurysm enlargement alone but also on other imaging characteristics.

Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm with Antecedent Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Late aortic rupture following successful endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm still does occur. It represents the ultimate failure of endovascular aortic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) and subjects patients to equivalent risk of death as de novo rupture. Unfortunately, it is difficult to identify patients at risk for post-EVAR rupture as many present with aortic rupture in the absence of any endograft-related complications. Continued surveillance and timely intervention are of paramount importance to assure rupture-free survival, the ultimate goal of any aneurysm treatment modality. The vascular surgeon needs to be prepared to provide the optimal therapy, whether open or endovascular, for this challenging cohort of patients.

Outcome and clinical significance of delayed endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is considered the standard therapy for most patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Endoleak is a well-known EVAR-related complication that requires long-term follow-up. However, patient follow-up is often challenging outside clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the incidence and the effect of delayed endoleaks in a Veterans Administration (VA) health care system where long-term follow-up is ensured.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 213 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR at a referral Veterans Administration medical center. Age, aneurysm size, patency of lumbar and inferior mesenteric arteries, and follow-up evaluations were recorded. Type of endoleak, date of detection, and intervention were also documented. Patients who had <1 year of follow-up were excluded. The χ(2) test, Student t-test, Mann-Whitney test, and Spearman correlation were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis included 183 patients with a mean follow-up of 53 months (range, 12-141 months); of these, 48 patients (26%) had endoleaks, and 31 (17%) had aneurysm progression. The mean diagnosis time for nontype II (n = 14) endoleaks was 45 months (range, 3-127 months), and 71% were diagnosed >1 year after EVAR. All except one nontype II endoleak received prompt secondary interventions, and the one without intervention presented with aneurysm rupture. An isolated type II endoleak was detected in 34 patients at an average of 14.4 months (range, 0-76 months) after EVAR, 41% of which were detected >1 year after EVAR. Patients without a documented endoleak had a significant decrease in aneurysm size at the latest computed tomography evaluation compared to the preoperative size (4.8 vs 5.7 cm; P < .001), whereas those with isolated type II endoleak had an increase at the latest computed tomography follow-up compared to preoperative size (5.8 vs 5.7 cm). Importantly, 59% of the patients with a type II endoleak had significant AAA enlargement (0.8 cm), and delayed type II endoleak was significantly associated with sac enlargement compared to type II endoleaks detected early. No significant correlation was seen between the diameter of inferior mesenteric artery or lumbar to AAA enlargement among the patients with a type II endoleak. Secondary interventions in 12 patients with isolated type II endoleak resulted in overall aneurysm stabilization or regression.

CONCLUSIONS

This long-term outcome study demonstrated that delayed endoleaks appearing >1 year after EVAR contributed to most of the overall endoleaks and were significantly associated with aneurysm sac growth. This study underscores that type II endoleak is not benign and that vigilant lifelong surveillance after EVAR is critical.

Metabolic syndrome is associated with type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Type II endoleak is usually a benign finding after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In some patients, however, type II endoleak leads to aneurysm sac expansion and the need for further intervention. We examined which factors, in particular the components of metabolic syndrome (MetS), would lead to an increase risk of endoleak after EVAR.

METHODS

The medical records of all patients who underwent EVAR between 2002 and 2011 at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System were reviewed. MetS was defined as the presence of three or more of the following: hypertension (blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg/≥90 mm Hg), serum triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL, serum high-density lipoproteins ≤50 mg/dL for women and ≤40 mg/dL for men, body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2), and fasting blood glucose ≥110 mg/dL. Development of endoleak, including specific endoleak type, was determined by review of standard radiologic surveillance.

RESULTS

During a 9-year period, 79 male patients (mean age, 73.5 years), underwent EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (mean 6.2 cm maximal transverse diameter). MetS was present in 52 patients (66%). The distribution of MetS factors among all patients was hypertension in 86%, hypertriglyceridemia in 72%, decreased high-density lipoprotein in 68%, diabetes in 37%, and a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m(2) in 30%. No survival difference was found between the MetS and non-MetS groups (P = .66). There was no difference in perioperative myocardial infarction or visceral ischemia immediately postoperatively between the two groups. Patients with MetS had a significant increase in acute kidney injury (n = 7, P = .0128). Endoleaks of all types were detected in 26% (n = 20) of all patients; patients with MetS had more endoleaks than patients without MetS (35% vs 7.4%, P = .0039). Of the 19 type II endoleaks, 79% were present at the time of EVAR and only 21% developed during surveillance; 95% had MetS (P = .0007).

CONCLUSIONS

Type II endoleak after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm is associated with MetS. Whether these patients are subject to more subsequent intervention due to sac expansion is unclear. MetS may be a factor to consider in the treatment of type II endoleak.

Metabolic syndrome is associated with type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Type II endoleak is usually a benign finding after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In some patients, however, type II endoleak leads to aneurysm sac expansion and the need for further intervention. We examined which factors, in particular the components of metabolic syndrome (MetS), would lead to an increase risk of endoleak after EVAR.

METHODS

The medical records of all patients who underwent EVAR between 2002 and 2011 at the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System were reviewed. MetS was defined as the presence of three or more of the following: hypertension (blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg/≥90 mm Hg), serum triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL, serum high-density lipoproteins ≤50 mg/dL for women and ≤40 mg/dL for men, body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2), and fasting blood glucose ≥110 mg/dL. Development of endoleak, including specific endoleak type, was determined by review of standard radiologic surveillance.

RESULTS

During a 9-year period, 79 male patients (mean age, 73.5 years), underwent EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (mean 6.2 cm maximal transverse diameter). MetS was present in 52 patients (66%). The distribution of MetS factors among all patients was hypertension in 86%, hypertriglyceridemia in 72%, decreased high-density lipoprotein in 68%, diabetes in 37%, and a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m(2) in 30%. No survival difference was found between the MetS and non-MetS groups (P = .66). There was no difference in perioperative myocardial infarction or visceral ischemia immediately postoperatively between the two groups. Patients with MetS had a significant increase in acute kidney injury (n = 7, P = .0128). Endoleaks of all types were detected in 26% (n = 20) of all patients; patients with MetS had more endoleaks than patients without MetS (35% vs 7.4%, P = .0039). Of the 19 type II endoleaks, 79% were present at the time of EVAR and only 21% developed during surveillance; 95% had MetS (P = .0007).

CONCLUSIONS

Type II endoleak after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm is associated with MetS. Whether these patients are subject to more subsequent intervention due to sac expansion is unclear. MetS may be a factor to consider in the treatment of type II endoleak.

Volumetric quantification of type II endoleaks: an indicator for aneurysm sac growth following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE

To test the hypothesis that type II endoleak cavity volume (ECV) and endoleak cavity diameter (ECD) measurements are accurate indicators of aneurysm sac volume (ASV) enlargement in patients who undergo endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in the abdominal aorta.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved and waived the need to obtain patient consent for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. In 72 patients who underwent EVAR, 160 computed tomographic (CT) angiography studies revealed type II endoleaks. Corresponding to these 160 CT angiography studies, 113 CT follow-up studies (in 52 patients) were available and were included in the analysis. ECV measurements were obtained by two observers in consensus by using arterial enhanced phase (ECVAEP) and 70-second delayed enhanced phase (ECVDEP) CT images. The ECVDEP was also normalized as the ECV/ASV ratio. Maximum (ECDM) and transverse (ECDT) ECDs were determined from delayed enhanced phase images. The outcome was determined as interval increase (>2%) in ASV versus stable or decreasing (≤2%) ASV. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the accuracy of type II ECV and ECD measurements in indicating interval increase in ASV.

RESULTS

In 56 (49.5%) of 113 CT studies in type II endoleaks, there was an interval increase in ASV. The accuracies of ECVDEP (area under the ROC curve [AUC], 0.85) and normalized ECVDEP (AUC, 0.86) were superior to the accuracies of ECDM (AUC, 0.73), ECDT (AUC, 0.73), and ECVAEP (AUC, 0.66). At ROC curve analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for type II endoleak cavities with an ECVDEP of less than 0.5 mL for showing no future sac volume enlargement were 33% (19 of 57), 100% (56 of 56), 100% (19 of 19), and 60% (56 of 94), respectively.

CONCLUSION

With use of the delayed enhanced phase of CT angiography, ECV measurement is an accurate indicator of aneurysm sac enlargement.