Surgical treatment of the progressive endoleak type II after EVAR

Technical and clinical success analysis of transarterial embolization therapy in type II endoleaks following endovascular aortic repair

This single-center study investigated the safety and efficacy of transarterial embolization of type II endoleaks for expanding aneurysm sacs following endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).36 patients (33 men, 75.9±6.6 years) underwent a total of 50 endovascular procedures for type II endoleak embolization between 2008 and 2023. Analyses included the assessment of patient risk profiles, aneurysm morphology, and endoleak characteristics. Outcome parameters comprised the technical success (i.e., complete lack of blood flow in the previously perfused aneurysm sac) and complication rates, while clinical success was defined as the absence of endoleak persistence or recurrence and freedom from aneurysm enlargement > 0.5 cm over the follow-up period.Transarterial embolization was technically successful in 84% of procedures with a complication rate of 2%. Most interventions were coil-based (72%), while a small number relied solely on liquid embolic agents (14%). Absence of a persisting endoleak in the earliest follow-up could be demonstrated in 75.6% of cases, whereas the absence rate for endoleak recurrence was substantially lower (46.3%). No aneurysm enlargement > 0.5 cm during follow-up was ascertained after 73.2% of interventions.Transarterial embolization represents a safe treatment for type II endoleaks after EVAR. While embolization was moderately effective in preventing further expansion of aneurysms due to endoleak recurrence, most procedures were successful in permanently eliminating the targeted feeder vessels. · Transarterial embolization of type II endoleaks has a high technical success rate.. · The emergence of new feeder vessels may necessitate multiple procedures over time.. · Patient risk profiles did not factor into the clinical outcome.. · Krompaß K, Grunz JP, Augustin AM et al. Technical and clinical success analysis of transarterial embolization therapy in type II endoleaks following endovascular aortic repair. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; DOI 10.1055/a-2384-4601.

Complex endoleak treatment after failed endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has created new possibilities for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), and in recent years it has become tremendously popular. Use of EVAR in selected groups of patients allows mortality and morbidity to be reduced in comparison to open repair. However, complications such as endoleaks (ELs) can be of great concern and warrant urgent therapy to prevent sac rupture.

CASE PRESENTATION

The case report presents urgent endovascular treatment of a high-risk type IA EL in a polymorbid 68-year-old patient 7 years after primary EVAR. The principle of treatment was parallel implantation of the proximal SG extension with the renal SG into the right renal artery (chimney technique). The subsequent type II collateral EL was treated by direct transabdominal AAA sac puncture and thrombin embolization.

CONCLUSION

EL can be a cause for urgent intervention, but specific anatomic features often require specialized SG types which are not readily available. The chimney technique allows the use of immediately available stent grafts to address endoleak in the setting of impending abdominal aneurysm rupture.

A meta-analysis of translumbar embolization versus transarterial embolization for type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between transarterial and translumbar (direct aneurysm sac puncture) approaches for persistent type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases (up to October 31, 2018) for eligible trials in patients with type II endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs that evaluated the outcomes of translumbar embolization vs transarterial embolization. The primary outcome was clinical success (absence of the endoleak on the last examination); the secondary outcomes were technical success and complication rate. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.

RESULTS

Among the 904 studies screened, 9 studies with 354 participants were included in this review. None of the studies reported rupture or mortality. The translumbar group had a relatively higher clinical success rate than the transarterial group, but this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.00-5.25; P = .05; I2 = 52%). The technical success rate was significantly higher in the translumbar group than in the transarterial group (OR, 13.32; 95% CI, 3.41-52.07; P = .0002; I2 = 0%). No significant difference was found in the complication rate of the two groups (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.26-4.96; P = .85; I2 = 0%). We also included five studies that reported the clinical outcomes of open repair. All patients were technically treated by open repair, and 58 of 60 patients owned clinical success during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The translumbar route was more successful in obliterating the endoleak on follow-up imaging. When repeated endovascular embolizations fail, a laparotomy should follow.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Outcome of Treatment for Type II Endoleak Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy and need for secondary interventions for type II endoleaks following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain controversial. This systematic review aimed at investigating the clinical outcomes of different type II endoleak treatments in patients with a persistent type II endoleak after EVAR.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Medline via Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar.

REVIEW METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. Outcomes of interest were technical and clinical success, change in sac diameter, complications, need for additional interventions, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture, and (AAA related) mortality. Meta-analyses were performed with random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 59 studies were included, with a cumulative cohort of 1073 patients with persistent type II endoleak. Peri-operative complications following treatment of type II endoleaks occurred in 3.8% of patients (95% CI 2.7-5.2%), and AAA related mortality was 1.8% (95% CI 1.1-2.7%). Overall technical success was 87.9% (95% CI 83.1-92.1%), while clinical success was 68.4% (95% CI 61.2-75.1%). Among studies detailing sac dynamics, decrease or stable sac, with or without resolution, was achieved in 78.4% (95% CI 70.2-85.6%). Changes in sac diameter following type II endoleak treatment were documented in 157 patients to at least 24 months. Within this group an actual decrease in sac diameter was reported in only 27 of 40 patients.

CONCLUSION

There is little evidence supporting the efficacy of secondary intervention for type II endoleaks after EVAR. Although generally safe, the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of type II endoleak treatment leads to difficulty in assessing its merits.