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

A computed tomography angiography-based radiomics model for prognostic prediction of endovascular abdominal aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a radiomics machine learning (ML) model that uses preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) data to predict the prognosis of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 164 AAA patients underwent EVAR and were categorized into shrinkage (good prognosis) or stable (poor prognosis) groups based on post-EVAR sac regression. From preoperative AAA and perivascular adipose tissue (PVAT) image, radiomics features (RFs) were extracted for model creation. Patients were split into 80 % training and 20 % test sets. A support vector machine model was constructed for prediction. Accuracy is evaluated via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Demographics and comorbidities showed no significant differences between shrinkage and stable groups. The model containing 5 AAA RFs (which are original_firstorder_InterquartileRange, log-sigma-3-0-mm-3D_glrlm_GrayLevelNonUniformityNormalized, log-sigma-3-0-mm-3D_glrlm_RunPercentage, log-sigma-4-0-mm-3D_glrlm_ShortRunLowGrayLevelEmphasis, wavelet-LLH_glcm_SumEntropy) had AUCs of 0.86 (training) and 0.77 (test). The model containing 7 PVAT RFs (which are log-sigma-3-0-mm-3D_firstorder_InterquartileRange, log-sigma-3-0-mm-3D_glcm_Correlation, wavelet-LHL_firstorder_Energy, wavelet-LHL_firstorder_TotalEnergy, wavelet-LHH_firstorder_Mean, wavelet-LHH_glcm_Idmn, wavelet-LHH_glszm_GrayLevelNonUniformityNormalized) had AUCs of 0.76 (training) and 0.78 (test). Combining AAA and PVAT RFs yielded the highest accuracy: AUCs of 0.93 (training) and 0.87 (test).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiomics-based CTA model predicts aneurysm sac regression post-EVAR in AAA patients. PVAT RFs from preoperative CTA images were closely related to AAA prognosis after EVAR, enhancing accuracy when combined with AAA RFs. This preliminary study explores a predictive model designed to assist clinicians in optimizing therapeutic strategies during clinical decision-making processes.

Clinical Study of the Results of Sac Prefilling Performed to Prevent Type II Endoleaks After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the effectiveness and safety of sac prefilling (SP) with fibrin glue and/or a coil to prevent type II endoleaks (T2ELs) after endovascular aneurysm repair. The main outcome measure was prevalence of incidence of T2ELs.

METHODS

First, this is a retrospective observational study on patients treated in our institution. Patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair between January 2017 and July 2022 were included and divided into the endovascular aneurysm repair and endovascular aneurysm repair with SP groups. Additionally, all patients were divided into high-risk (HR) and low-risk (LR) groups based on their risk for T2ELs. The prevalence of incidence of T2ELs at 1 year postoperatively was the main effectiveness index, and the colorectal ischemia complication rate was the main safety index.

RESULTS

A total of 431 patients were included in this clinical study. The endovascular aneurysm repair group and SP group comprised 383 patients and 48 patients, respectively. No statistically significant differences between these groups were observed. The HR group included 282 patients; 246 of these patients were in the HR endovascular aneurysm repair group, and 36 were in the HR SP group. The prevalence of incidence of T2ELs in the endovascular aneurysm repair group was higher than that of the SP group at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (15.4% vs 2.8% and 13.2% vs 0%); statistically significant differences between these groups were observed (p = 0.039 and p = 0.032). The postoperative follow-up period was 60 months. A Kaplan-Meier curve analysis indicated that the cumulative T2EL incidence rate of the endovascular aneurysm repair group was significantly higher than that of the SP group (p = 0.011). The LR group included a total of 149 patients; 137 of these patients were in the endovascular aneurysm repair group, and 12 were in the SP group. No statistically significant differences between these groups were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm who are at HR for T2ELs, SP could effectively, and safely prevent postoperative T2ELs.Clinical ImpactThis study points out that in patients with AAA, the sac prefilling technique is more suitable for patients with high-risk factors, so the operator should evaluate the patient's anatomical condition more thoroughly before EVAR.

Outcome Analysis of Pre-Emptive Embolization of the Collateral Branches of the Abdominal Aorta During Standard Infrarenal Endovascular Aortic Repair

Objectives: To report the results of pre-emptive embolization of collateral branches of the abdominal aorta in patients undergoing standard bifurcated EVAR versus those undergoing standard EVAR without embolization. Methods: This study is a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort analysis of consecutive patients who underwent elective standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) between 1 October 2013, and 31 December 2022, with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. The patients were divided into two groups: group A, which did not receive embolization, and group B, which underwent pre-emptive embolization of aortic collateral branches. The primary outcomes for this study include overall survival, freedom from aorta-related mortality (ARM), and freedom from reinterventions related to type 2 endoleak (T2E). In cases of multiple reinterventions, only the first one was considered for this analysis. The secondary outcome focused on assessing freedom from aneurysm sac enlargement. Results: We analyzed a total of 265 endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs): 183 (69.1%) were classified into group A, and 82 (30.9%) into group B. The median follow-up duration was 48 months [interquartile range (IQR), 28-65.5], which was not significantly different between the two groups [45 months (26-63) in group A vs. 52.5 months (29.5-72.5) in group B, p = 0.098]. The estimated cumulative survival rates were 87% (0.2) at 2 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.6-92.9) and 67% (0.3) at 5 years (95% CI: 60.3-73.1), with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.263). The aorta-related mortality rate was 1.1% (n = 3); all instances occurred following open conversion due to graft infection (n = 2) and in one case of secondary aortic rupture (n = 1). In total, 34 cases (12.8%) indicated a secondary intervention related to type 2 endoleak (T2E). The freedom from T2E-related reintervention rate was 99% (0.01) at 2 years (95% CI: 99.4-99.8) and 88% (0.3) at 5 years (95% CI: 81.4-92.5), with no differences between the groups (p = 0.282). Cox regression analysis revealed that age over 80 years is an independent negative predictor of survival, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.27-5.50; p < 0.001). Additionally, T2E-related reintervention was identified as a negative predictor, with an HR of 2.4 (95% CI: 1.05-5.54; p = 0.037). In this study, conversion to open repair was necessary for 14 patients (5.3%), with three conversions occurring due to rupture; however, T2E was not a determining factor in any of these conversions. At the last available follow-up computed tomography angiography (CT-A), the median aneurysm diameter was significantly lower in group B, measuring 44 mm (range 37.7-50), compared to group A, measuring 48 mm (range 39-57.5) (p < 0.001). Both groups showed a significant change from baseline measurements (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Pre-emptive embolization of the aortic collateral branches does not lead to improved aorta-related outcomes after EVAR.

Safety and Efficacy of Coil Embolization for Endoleak Prevention as an Adjunct to Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm or Subsequently for the Repair of Endoleak

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the real-world safety and efficacy of coil embolization during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) for prophylactic endoleak prevention or as a reintervention for endoleak repair, using the Cerenovus family of coils (Cerenovus, Irvine, CA, USA).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent embolization of branching arteries during EVAR of an AAA or as a reintervention for endoleak repair, using Cerenovus coils between January 2017 and December 2021 in Japan. The primary outcome was 30-day reintervention-free survival, defined as cardiovascular mortality or any complication requiring reintervention within 30 days post procedure. Secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgical repair, length of hospitalization, and the following outcomes through 30 days and 1-year post procedure: occurrence of endoleak (Type I-V), reintervention, complications not requiring reintervention, aneurysm-related mortality, coil migration, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 306 patients (mean age 76.7 ± 7.8; 16.7% [51/306] female) were included in the study. Infrarenal AAA were most common (175/306; 57.2%), and the mean aneurysm size was 52.1 ± 10.9 mm. At 30 days, reintervention-free survival was achieved in 96.4% (295/306) of the patients; 9 (2.9%) patients required reintervention, and 2 (0.7%) died from cardiovascular causes through 30 days. One (1/305; 0.3%) patient underwent conversion to open repair. The mean length of hospitalization was 8.6 ± 7.2 days. Complications not requiring reintervention occurred in 3.9% (12/306) of the patients through 30-days and 12.4% (38/306) through 1-year. Endoleak occurred in 2.9% (9/306) of the patients at 30 days and 9.5% (29/306) at 1 year. Coil migration and aneurysm rupture were not reported for any patient. Aneurysm-related mortalities occurred in 0.0% (0/305) at 30 days and 0.3% (1/303) at 1 year. All-cause mortalities occurred in 0.7% (2/306) at 30 days and 3.3% (10/304) at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the use of Cerenovus coils yielded a high rate of 30-day-reintervention-free survival and low rates of type II endoleak occurrence and recurrence at the target vessel through 30 days and 1 year in patients following EVAR of an AAA with coil embolization, either for prophylactic endoleak prevention during EVAR or as a reintervention to repair an endoleak.

Impact of Intraoperative Branch Embolization for Type 2 Endoleak Prevention During Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) has a significantly higher revision rate than open repair, primarily due to type 2 endoleak (2EL). Although 2ELs are considered benign, late open conversion (LOC) due to the expansion of the aneurysm diameter of the 2EL is a concern in the mid- and long-term. In this study, we investigated the impact of embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) or lumbar artery (LA) at the time of the initial EVAR and its long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Between April 2008 and December 2021, 743 EVAR procedures for abdominal aortic aneurysms were performed at our institution. The patients were divided into 2 groups at the time of initial surgery, namely, 215 and 528 patients in the embolization (Group E) and nonembolization (Group N) groups, respectively. Branch embolization was performed in patients with an IMA diameter ≥3 mm and LA diameter ≥2 mm on preoperative computed tomography. Re-embolization with EL was performed in patients with a diameter enlargement ≥10 mm, and LOC was performed in patients with continued enlargement ≥15 mm after re-embolization. The mean follow-up period was 7.0 years.

RESULTS

The mean number of branch embolizations was 2.3 ± 1.1. Intraoperatively, the operative time, fluoroscopy time, irradiation dose, and contrast medium use were significantly higher in Group E than in Group N. There was a significant difference between the 2 groups regarding shrinkage (Group E versus Group N: 45.6% versus 37.3%; P = 0.03) and enlargement (Group E versus Group N: 9.3% vs. 19.5%; P < 0.001) of the aneurysm diameter by > 5 mm after EVAR. In the mid- and long-term, the avoidance rate of 2EL reintervention was significantly lower in Group E at 5 years (93.5% vs. 88.6%) and 10 years (87.5% vs. 76.4%; P = 0.04). LOC prevention was 5 years; Group E: 100% vs. 96.9% for Group N and 10 years; Group E: 98.8% vs. 92.5% for Group N, significantly lower in Group E (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of branch embolization at the time of the initial EVAR is believed to prevent enlargement of the aneurysmal sac and LOC. However, prolonged operation time, increased radiation exposure, and the use of contrast medium have been debated. To improve the long-term results of EVAR, embolisms of both the IMA and LA are required.

When Endovascular Interventions for Endoleaks Fail

In the appropriate patient population, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care for abdominal aortic aneurysms. While the initial success rates of EVAR are very high, reinterventions occur in a significant minority of patients, most of which consist of the repair of endoleaks. When indicated, such procedures are typically performed via endovascular or percutaneous approaches; however, in certain patients, these minimally invasive repairs fail. In these patients, surgical techniques can be used to treat the endoleaks. This article describes the open surgical techniques used in the repair of endoleaks where standard endovascular techniques fail.

Incidence and Long-Term Implications of Type 2 Endoleak after Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic and Aortoiliac Aneurysms

Type 2 endoleak has been proved not to significantly increase the risk of aneurysm rupture. However, it is associated with aneurysm enlargement and may require secondary interventions. Its role has been widely investigated, but a definitive consensus about its management has still not been obtained. We performed a retrospective, single-center observational study that investigates the incidence of type 2 endoleak and its implications in the long-term follow-up in all the patients who underwent endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm from 2011 to 2016 at our institution. A total of 216 patients who underwent EVAR during the specified time period were enrolled, and 85 of them (39%) developed type 2 endoleak in their follow-up. Thirty-one of the patients who developed type 2 endoleak faced an aneurysm sac growth > 10 mm and required secondary intervention. Only nine of them showed resolution of the leak. In the long-term follow-up, patients who developed type 2 endoleak after EVAR did not show a significantly increased mortality compared with those who did not, but some of them required late open conversion due to aneurysm sac enlargement and some other developed a secondary type 1 endoleak which required correction. The management of type 2 endoleak remains debated, despite consensus exist regarding the need for intervention when a > 10-mm aneurysm sac growth is observed. Further studies are necessary to better define which are the "high-risk" type 2 endoleaks and identify the patients who would benefit more from correction.

Five-year follow-up of randomized clinical trial for pre-emptive inferior mesenteric artery embolization during endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Type II endoleak (T2EL) is the most common type of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and a common indication for reintervention due to late sac enlargement. Although pre-emptive embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) has been proposed to prevent this, no studies have prospectively demonstrated its efficacy. This study aimed to prove the validity of IMA embolization during EVAR in selective cases by analyzing the mid-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial (RCT).

METHODS

This single-center, parallel-group, non-blinded RCT included participants at high risk of T2EL, characterized by a patent IMA in conjunction with one or more following risk factors: a patent IMA ≥3 mm in diameter, lumbar arteries ≥2 mm in diameter, or an aortoiliac-type aneurysm. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups in a 1:1 ratio: one undergoing EVAR with IMA embolization and the other without. The primary endpoint was T2EL occurrence. The secondary endpoints included aneurysm sac changes and reintervention. In addition to RCT participants, outcomes of patients with low risk of T2EL were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The embolization and non-embolization groups each contained 53 patients. Five-year follow-up after the last patient enrollment revealed that T2ELs occurred in 28.3% and 54.7% of patients in the IMA embolization and non-embolization groups, respectively (P = .006). Both freedom from T2EL-related sac enlargement ≥5 mm and cumulative incidence of sac shrinkage ≥5 mm were significantly higher in the IMA embolization group than in the non-embolization group (95.5% vs 73.6% at 5 years; P = .021; 54.2% vs 33.6% at 5 years; P = .039, respectively). The freedom from T2EL-related sac enlargement ≥10 mm, an alternative indicator for T2EL-related reintervention, showed similar results (100% vs 90.4% at 5 years; P = .019). Outcomes in the low-risk group were preferable than those in the non-embolization group and comparable to those in the IMA embolization group.

CONCLUSIONS

A lower threshold for pre-emptive IMA embolization when implementing EVAR would be more appropriate if limited to patients at high risk of T2ELs.

Implications and late outcomes of type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Type II endoleaks (T2ELs) are the most common cause of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Although most resolve spontaneously, the long-term implications of T2ELs remain elusive. We aim to evaluate the impact of persistent and late T2ELs on clinical outcomes after EVAR.

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective review of patients who underwent EVAR for degenerative infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm between January 2010 and June 2022 with no type I (T1EL) or III (T3EL) endoleak seen at EVAR completion. Patients were categorized based on T2EL status. Group 1 included patients with never detected or transient T2ELs (detected at EVAR completion but not after). Group 2 encompassed persistent T2ELs (seen at EVAR completion and again during follow-up) and late T2ELs (detected for the first time at any point during follow-up). Time-to-event analysis was conducted using a time-dependent approach to T2EL status. Primary outcomes included freedom from sac enlargement (SE), aneurysm-related reinterventions, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 803 patients met inclusion criteria. Group 1 included 418 patients (52%), of which 85% had no T2ELs and 15% had transient T2ELs. Group 2 had 385 patients; 23% had persistent T2ELs, and 77% developed a new T2EL. Patients in group 1 had a higher prevalence of smoking (88% vs 83%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (33% vs 25%; P = .008), chronic kidney disease (13% vs 8%; P = .021), and a higher mean Society for Vascular Surgery score (7 vs 6 points; P = .049). No differences were found in aneurysm diameter or morphology. Mean follow-up was 5 years for the entire cohort. In Group 2, 58 patients (15%) underwent T2EL treatment, most commonly transarterial embolization. At 10 years after EVAR, Group 2 was associated with lower freedom from SE (P < .001) and abdominal aortic aneurysm-related reinterventions (P < .001) and comparable overall survival (P = .42). More T1ELs were detected during follow-up in Group 2 (6 [1%] vs 20 [5%]; P = .004), with 15 (75%) of these detected at a median of 3 years after the T2EL. No difference between groups was observed in explant (0.7% vs 2.1%; P = .130) or aneurysm rupture (0.5% vs 1.3%; P = .269) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

One-half of patients treated with infrarenal EVAR developed persistent/late T2ELs, which are associated with a higher risk of SE and reinterventions. No difference in overall survival or aneurysm rupture risk was seen at 10 years, based on T2EL status or T2EL intervention. A conservative approach to T2ELs may be appropriate for most patients with absent T1ELs or T3ELs.

Understanding Type II Endoleak: A Harmless Imaging Finding or a Silent Threat?

Type II endoleak (T2EL) represents a challenging clinical entity following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Although several studies have suggested that T2ELs are related to an increased risk of aneurysm sac growth and subsequent rupture, the exact role that T2ELs play in long-term outcomes remains debatable. Understanding the pathophysiology, diagnostic modalities, and management options of T2ELs is important for patients' safety and proper resource utilization. While conservative management may be suitable for asymptomatic patients with a stable aneurysm size, interventional approaches, including transarterial embolization, direct sac puncture embolization and open conversion have been described for patients with persistent T2EL associated with sac expansion. However, more research is needed to better determine the clinical benefit of such interventions. A thorough evaluation of all endoleak types before T2EL treatment would be reasonable for patients with T2ELs associated with sac expansion. Further studies are needed to refine treatment strategies aimed at minimizing T2EL-related complications. Collaborative efforts among vascular specialists, radiologists, and researchers are of paramount importance to address this ongoing clinical challenge.

Impact of the Patency of Inferior Mesenteric Artery on 7-Year Outcomes After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

The impact of preoperative patent inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) on late outcomes following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the specific influence of IMA patency on 7-year outcomes after EVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 556 EVARs performed for true abdominal aortic aneurysm cases between January 2006 and December 2019 at our institution were reviewed. Endovascular aneurysm repairs performed using a commercially available device with no type I or type III endoleak (EL) during follow-up and with follow-up ≥12 months were included. A total of 336 patients were enrolled in this study. The cohort was divided into the patent IMA group and the occluded IMA group according to preoperative IMA status. The late outcomes, including aneurysm sac enlargement, reintervention, and mortality rates, were compared between both groups using propensity-score-matched data.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 86 patients were included in each group. The median follow-up period was 56 months (interquartile range: 32-94 months). The incidence of type II EL at discharge was 50% in the patent IMA group and 19% in the occluded IMA group (p<0.001). The type II EL from IMA and lumbar arteries was significantly higher in the patent IMA group than in the occluded IMA group (p<0.001 and p=0.002). The rate of freedom from aneurysm sac enlargement with type II EL was significantly higher in the occluded IMA group than in the patent IMA group (94% vs 69% at 7 years; p<0.001). The rate of freedom from reintervention was significantly higher in the occluded IMA group than in the patent IMA group (90% vs 74% at 7 years; p=0.007). Abdominal aortic aneurysm-related death and all-cause mortality did not significantly differ between groups (p=0.32 and p=0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Inferior mesenteric artery patency could affect late reintervention and aneurysm sac enlargement but did not have a significant impact on mortality. Preoperative assessment and embolization of IMA might be an important factor for improvement in late EVAR outcomes.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The preoperative patency of the inferior mesenteric artery was significantly associated with a higher incidence of sac enlargement and reintervention with type II endoleak following endovascular aneurysm repair, even after adjustment for patient background. Preoperative assessment and embolization of inferior mesenteric artery might be an important factor for improvement in late EVAR outcomes.

ELECT: prospective, randomized trial comparing microvascular plug versus platinum-fibered microcoils for embolization of aneurysm sac side branches before endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Preemptive selective embolization of aneurysm sac side branches (ASSBs) has been proposed to prevent type II endoleak after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study aimed to explore if an embolization strategy using microvascular plugs (MVP) reduces intervention time and radiation dose compared to platinum-fibered microcoils. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the devices in occluding the treated artery was assessed.

METHODS

Sixty patients scheduled for EVAR underwent percutaneous preemptive embolization of ASSBs using MVPs or coils after a 1:1 randomization. Follow-up imaging was performed during aortic stentgraft implantation.

RESULTS

Overall, 170 ASSBs were successfully occluded (83 arteries by MVPs and 87 by coils) and no acute treatment failure occurred. The mean procedure time was significantly lower in the group treated with MVPs (55 ± 4 min) compared to coil occlusion (67 ± 3 min; p = 0.018), which was paralleled by a numerically lower radiation dose (119 Gy/cm2 vs. 140 Gy/cm2; p = 0.45). No difference was found for contrast agent use (34 ml MVP group vs 35 ml coil group; p = 0.87). At follow-up, reopening of lumbar arteries was seen in nine cases (four after coil embolization; five after MVPs).

CONCLUSION

Both microvascular plugs and coils can be effectively used for preemptive embolization of aneurysm sac side branches before EVAR. Use of plugs offers a benefit in terms of intervention time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03842930 Registered 15 February 2019.

Injection of n-Butyl-2-Cyanoacrylate into the Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Sac during Endovascular Aortic Repair to Prevent Type II Endoleaks Caused by Lumbar Arteries

PURPOSE

To evaluate midterm results of whether the strategy to occlude target lumbar arteries using n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (nBCA) injection during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reduced the incidence of Type II endoleak (T2EL) after EVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2013 and 2020, 187 patients underwent EVAR; 106 in the treatment group received nBCA injection during EVAR, whereas 81 in the historical control group did not. The incidence of T2EL at 7 days, need for reintervention, and post-EVAR aneurysmal shrinkage were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Between the treatment group and the control group, significant differences were achieved in the incidence of T2EL (2.8% vs 28.4%; P < .0001) and decreased aneurysmal diameter was observed at 1 year after EVAR (-5.2 vs -3.8 mm; P = .034). In multivariate analysis, nBCA injection (odds ratio [OR], 0.04; P = .001) and younger age (OR, 0.92; P = .036) were significantly associated with a reduced incidence of T2EL. As a possible adverse event associated with nBCA injection, 2 cases of transient lower-limb motor dysfunction (1.9%) were observed. Propensity score analysis revealed that the treatment group had a significantly lower incidence of T2EL than that in the control group (P = .0002) even though there was no difference in the incidence of inferior mesenteric artery coil embolization between the groups. The survival rate without aneurysm sac enlargement (100.0% vs 69.8%; P = .014) and the reintervention-free rate (100.0% vs 63.1%; P = .034) in the treatment group were significantly higher than those in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant nBCA injection can provide durable EVAR without T2EL, as supported by the avoidance of reintervention associated with aneurysm sac enlargement.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Management of Endoleaks Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Endoleaks represent the most common complication after EVAR. Some types are associated with ongoing risk of aneurysm rupture and necessitate long-term surveillance and secondary interventions.

PURPOSE

This document, as with all CIRSE Standards of Practice documents, will recommend a reasonable approach to best practices of managing endoleaks. This will include imaging diagnosis, surveillance, indications for intervention, endovascular treatments and their outcomes. Our purpose is to provide recommendations based on up-to-date evidence, updating the guidelines previously published on this topic in 2013.

METHODS

The writing group was established by the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee and consisted of clinicians with internationally recognised expertise in endoleak management. The writing group reviewed the existing literature performing a pragmatic evidence search using PubMed to select publications in English and relating to human subjects up to 2023. The final recommendations were formulated through consensus.

RESULTS

Endoleaks may compromise durability of the aortic repair, and long-term imaging surveillance is necessary for early detection and correct classification to guide potential re-intervention. The majority of endoleaks that require treatment can be managed using endovascular techniques. This Standards of Practice document provides up-to-date recommendations for the safe management of endoleaks.

Management of Endoleaks After Elective Infrarenal Aortic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Review

Importance

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment strategy for abdominal aortic aneurysms, encompassing 80% of all repairs in the United States. Endoleaks are ubiquitous and affect 30% of patients treated by EVAR, potentially leading to sac enlargement and increased risk of rupture. The care of EVAR patients requires long-term surveillance by a multidisciplinary team. Accordingly, physicians should be familiar with the fundamentals of endoleak management to achieve optimal outcomes, including timely referral for remediation or providing counseling and reassurance when needed.

Observations

PubMed and the Cochrane database were searched for articles published between January 2002 and December 2022 in English, addressing epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of endoleaks after EVAR. Endoleaks can be detected intraoperatively or years later, making lifelong surveillance mandatory. Type I and III have the highest risk of rupture (7.5% at 2 years and 8.9% at 1 year, respectively) and should be treated when identified. Intervention should be considered for other types of endoleak when associated with aneurysm sac growth larger than 5 mm based on current guidelines. Type II endoleaks are the most common, accounting for 50% of all endoleaks. Up to 90% of type II endoleaks resolve spontaneously or are not associated with sac enlargement, requiring only observation. Although the risk of rupture is less than 1%, cases that require reintervention are challenging. Recurrence is common despite endovascular treatment, and rupture can occur without evidence of sac growth. Type IV endoleaks and endotension are uncommon, are typically benign, and primarily should be observed.

Conclusions and Relevance

Endoleak management depends on the type and presence of sac expansion. Type I and III endoleaks require intervention. Type II endoleaks should be observed and treated selectively in patients with significant sac expansion. Since endoleaks can appear any time after EVAR, at least 1 contrast-enhanced computed tomographic angiogram or duplex ultrasound by an experienced laboratory is recommended every 5 years.

Incidence, reintervention, and survival associated with type II endoleak at hospital discharge after elective endovascular aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

The longitudinal clinical significance of type II endoleaks (T2ELs) remains controversial. Specifically, the real-world incidence, need for reintervention, and associated mortality referable to T2ELs remain unknown. Moreover, current professional society clinical practice guidelines recommend differing aneurysm sac growth thresholds to prompt intervention. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to better quantify the prevalence of early T2ELs after infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and determine its association with reintervention and survival.

METHODS

All elective EVARs from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2010-2020) were examined to identify patients with isolated T2ELs vs no endoleak (NONE) at discharge. Procedures with a type I or III endoleak were excluded. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients surviving beyond the first postoperative year with follow-up data available on endoleaks. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included perioperative mortality and reinterventions. Outcomes were assessed by multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for covariates.

RESULTS

We identified 53,697 patients who underwent EVAR. The overall incidence of isolated T2ELs at discharge was 16%. In-hospital mortality was lower for those with isolated T2ELs vs NONE (0.8% vs 1.9%, odds ratio: 0.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.5-0.8, P < .0001). Unadjusted overall survival was marginally higher at 5 years for patients with T2ELs vs NONE (84% vs 82%); however, after risk adjustment, survival was similar (hazard ratio: 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.9-1.0). Among 44,345 patients with 1-year follow-up, 66% had data on endoleak status for assessment. Survival was similar regardless of endoleak status (NONE, at discharge only, at follow-up only, or at both time points). Among patients with documented T2ELs during follow-up, 6.1% and 2.5% had abdominal aortic aneurysm sac diameter growth ≥5 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively. Reinterventions occurred in 12%. Rupture (1%) and any open reintervention (4%) were rare among patients with 1-year follow-up. For patients with T2ELs, 5-year survival was similar between those with and without reintervention by 1 year (89% vs 91%, log-rank P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

T2ELs remain common after EVAR within the Vascular Quality Initiative and are not associated with long-term mortality. Reinterventions for T2ELs were not associated with improved overall survival among patients with T2ELs. Although additional data surrounding the appropriate role of reintervention for T2ELs remain necessary, it appears that the natural history of T2ELs is benign.

Patent iliolumbar artery increase no risk of type II endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm: a case-control study

Objective

The aims of the present study were to explore the risk factors for type 2 endoleaks (T2ELs) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and the association between T2ELs and the iliolumbar artery.

Materials and methods

A single-center, retrospective case-control study in West China Hospital was conducted among patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who underwent EVAR between June 2010 and June 2019. The associations of patient characteristics, anatomical factors, internal iliac artery embolization, and ILA with the primary outcome were analyzed. The secondary objective was to analyze survival and reintervention between the T2EL group and the non-T2EL group. Kaplan-Meier survival, propensity matching analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used.

Results

A total of 603 patients were included. The median follow-up was 51 months (range 5.0-106.0). There was a significant difference in the diameter of the lumbar artery (LA), middle sacral artery (MSA) and inferior mesentery artery (IMA), proportion of thrombus and LA numbers. The univariate analysis showed that T2ELs were more likely to develop more thrombus in aneurysm cavity (OR = 0.294, p = 0.012), larger MSA (OR = 1.284, p = 0.04), LA (OR = 1.520, p = 0.015), IMA (OR = 1.056, p < 0.001) and more LAs (OR = 1.390, p = 0.019). The multivariate analysis showed that the number of LAs (HR: 1.349, 95% CI: 1.140-1.595, p < .001) and the diameter of the IMA (HR: 1.328, 95% CI: 1.078-1.636, p = 0.008) were significantly associated with T2ELs. There were no new findings from the propensity score matching. The reintervention-free survival rates were significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.048). Overall survival and AAA-related death rates were not different between the two group. This was consistent with the PSM analysis.

Conclusion

The iliolumbar artery and the different internal iliac artery interventions may not increase the incidence of T2ELs. But the numbers of LAs and IMA diameter were independent risk factors for T2Els. T2ELs was associated with the reintervention but did not affect long-term survival or increase aneurysm-related mortality after EVAR.

Pre-Operative Four Dimensional Flow Sensitive Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment of Aortic Side Branches as a Method to Predict Risk of Type II Endoleak Resulting in Sac Enlargement After EVAR

OBJECTIVE

To predict sac enlargement with type II endoleak (ELII) before endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using four dimensional flow sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (4D flow MRI).

METHODS

A single centre retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted. Patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who underwent EVAR between 2013 and 2019 were included. Aortic branches occluded pre-EVAR, and patients with endoleaks other than ELII were excluded. The aortic branch diameter, peak flow velocity (PFVe), and amplitude of the dynamics of flow volume (AFV) were measured in each aortic branch pre-EVAR. Total flow volume per minute (TFV/min), defined as the sum of AFV/min, was calculated in each case. According to computed tomography findings one year post-EVAR, the aortic branches and patients were divided into patent vessel and occluded vessel groups and sac expanding and non-expanding groups. PFVe, AFV/min, and TFV/min were analysed via receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

The patent aortic branches pre-EVAR (69 inferior mesenteric arteries [IMAs]; 249 lumbar arteries [LAs]) of 100 patients were included. Patent IMAs (n = 14) and occluded IMAs (n = 55), patent LAs (n = 23) and occluded LAs (n = 226), and expanding (n = 9) and non-expanding (n = 91) groups were compared, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in branch diameters (IMA; patent, 2.5 ± 0.8 mm, occluded, 2.5 ± 0.8 mm, p < .78 and LA; patent, 1.5 ± 0.3 mm, occluded, 1.5 ± 0.4 mm, p < .35). PFVe (IMA; patent, 262.6 mm2/sec, occluded, 183.4 mm2/sec and LA; patent, 142.6 mm2/sec, occluded, 47.7 mm2/sec) and AFV/min (IMA; patent, 8.4 mL, occluded, 5.2 mL and LA; patent, 4.2 mL, occluded, 1.4 mL) were higher in the patent vessel group (p < .050). TFV/min was statistically significantly higher in the expanding group (24.1 mL/min) than in the non-expanding group (7.0 mL/min) (p < .010).

CONCLUSION

Pre-EVAR haemodynamic analyses using 4D flow MRI were useful to detect aortic branches responsible for ELII and to predict AAA cases with sac enlargement. This analysis suggests a new strategy for pre-EVAR aortic branch embolisation.

The Challenge of Endoleaks in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR): A Review of Their Types and Management

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a dilatation of the abdominal aorta above 3 cm or 50% greater than the segment above. It is a dangerous condition accounting for a substantial number of deaths per year and increasing at an alarming rate. Various factors come into play in the development of AAAs, which this study has elaborated on, including smoking and old age, demographics, and comorbid conditions. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a newer treatment modality used for AAAs in which an endograft device is placed into the aorta, thereby creating a bypass tract from the aneurysm and generating flow mimicking that of the natural aorta. It is minimally invasive and associated with less postoperative mortality and reduced hospital stay. However, EVAR is also associated with significant postoperative complications, including endoleaks, which were reviewed in depth. Endoleaks are postprocedural leaks into the aneurysm sac that are usually identified immediately after graft placement and indicate treatment failure. They are of five subtypes, categorized according to their mechanism of development. The most common type is type II endoleaks, and the most dangerous is type I endoleaks. Each subtype has multiple management options with varying rates of success. Prompt identification along with appropriate treatment of endoleaks can lead to better postoperative outcomes and improved quality of life for patients.

Role of Aggressive Aneurysm Sac Embolization Before Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair in Preventing Type II Endoleak and Sac Expansion

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of aggressive embolization of side branches arising from the aneurysmal sac before endovascular aneurysm repair.

Methods

This retrospective study included 95 patients who underwent endovascular infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair at Tottori University Hospital between October 2016 and January 2021. Of these, 54 underwent standard endovascular aneurysm repair (conventional group), and 41 underwent coiling of the inferior mesenteric and lumbar arteries before undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (embolization group). The occurrence of type II endoleak, change in aneurysmal sac diameter, and reintervention rate due to type II endoleak during follow-up were evaluated.

Results

Compared to the conventional group, the embolization group had a significantly lower incidence of type II endoleak, more frequent aneurysmal sac shrinkage, and lower aneurysmal sac growth related to type II endoleak.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated the effectiveness of aggressive aneurysmal sac embolization before endovascular aneurysm repair to prevent type II endoleak and the consequent long-term aneurysmal sac enlargement.

Prophylactic Perigraft Arterial Sac Embolization During EVAR: Minimizing Type II Endoleaks and Improving Sac Regression

BACKGROUND

Type II endoleaks (ELII) are the most common complication following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Persistent type II endoleaks require continual surveillance and have been shown to increase the risk of Type I and III endoleaks, sac growth, need for intervention, conversion to open or even rupture directly or indirectly. These are often difficult to treat following EVAR and there are limited data regarding the effectiveness of prophylactic treatment of ELII. The aim of this study is to report midterm outcomes of prophylactic perigraft arterial sac embolization (pPASE) performed in patients undergoing EVAR.

METHODS

This is a comparison of two elective cohorts of those undergoing EVAR using the Ovation stent graft with and without prophylactic branch vessel and sac embolization. Patients who underwent pPASE at our institution had data collected in a prospective, IRB approved database. These were compared against the core lab adjudicated data from the Ovation IDE trial. Prophylactic PASE was performed at the time of EVAR with thrombin, contrast and gelfoam if lumbar or mesenteric arteries were patent. Endpoints included freedom from ELII, reintervention, sac growth, all-cause mortality (ACM) and aneurysm-related mortality (ARM).

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (13.1%) underwent pPASE, while 238 patients (86.9%) had standard EVAR. Median follow-up was 56 months (IQR 33-60). The 4-year freedom from ELII estimates were 84% for the pPASE vs 50.7% for the standard EVAR group (P=0.0002). All aneurysms in the pPASE group remained stable in size or demonstrated regression, whereas aneurysm sac expansion was seen in 10.9% of the standard EVAR group, P=0.03. At 4 years, mean AAA diameter decreased by 11mm (95% CI 8-15) in the pPASE group vs 5mm (95%CI 4-6) for the standard EVAR group, P=0.0005. There were no differences in the 4-year freedom from ACM and ARM. However, the difference in reintervention for ELII trended toward significance (0.0% vs 10.7%, P=0.1). On multivariable analysis, pPASE was associated with a 76% reduction in ELII [aHR(95%CI): 0.24 (0.08-0.65), P=0.005].

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that pPASE in those undergoing EVAR is safe and effective in the prevention of EII and significantly improves sac regression over standard EVAR while minimizing the need for reintervention.

Volumetric analysis of effectiveness of embolization for preventing type II endoleaks following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The presence of endoleak was associated with the failure of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) treatment. The key to eliminating type II endoleak has shifted from reintervention to prevention. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of applying fibrin sealant to prevent type II endoleak in conjunction with EVAR.

METHODS

All patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm who underwent EVAR from June 2019 to July 2021 were reviewed. Patients were grouped as Group A: standard EVAR with preemptive embolization and Group B: standard EVAR alone. The primary endpoint was the incidence of type II endoleak. The secondary endpoints were aneurysm sac regression, the inferior mesenteric artery patency, the numbers of patent lumbar arteries, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included in Group A, and 116 were included in Group B. Technical success rate was 100%. The overall incidence of type II endoleak in Group A was significantly lower than that in Group B (4.8% vs 19.0%). The mean time of freedom from type II endoleak was 22.71 months for Group A (95% confidence interval, 21.59-23.83 months) and 19.89 months for Group B (95% confidence interval, 18.08-21.70 months). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from type II endoleak showed a significantly longer duration of freedom from type II endoleak in Group A (81.0% vs 95.2%). Group A showed a continuous sac regression tendency. In Group B, the sac volume decreased within 12 months but increased by 3.07 cm³ at 24 months. No complications were noted in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonselective preemptive embolization with porcine fibrin sealant during EVAR was safe and effective in preventing type II endoleak in the short and mid-term. Preemptive embolization can lead to a significantly higher sac regression rate. Larger patient populations and longer follow-ups with randomized control designed trials are expected to verify the long-term effectiveness and safety of preemptive embolization in preventing type II endoleak.

Efficacy and safety of prophylactic intraoperative sac embolization in EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm: A meta-analysis

Objective

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic sac embolization during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients suffering from abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to identify studies evaluating the outcomes of sac embolization vs. no embolization among patients who had received EVAR. The time limit of the search was from the establishing database to July 22, 2022. Outcome measures involved the type II endoleak rate, the other endoleak rate, the reintervention rate, mortality, and operation time. Fixed (no heterogeneity) or random effects models were constructed for each outcome. The outcomes are represented as the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Among the 2,622 studies screened, 13 studies involving 747 participants were included in the review. The incidence of early-term type II endoleak (OR = 0.2, 95% CI (0.13,0.31), P < 0.00001), mid-term type II endoleak (OR = 0.23, 95% CI (0.15,0.37), P < 0.00001), late-term type II endoleak (OR = 0.27, 95% CI (0.16,0.46), P < 0.00001) and reintervention (OR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.37,0.78), P = 0.002) within the sac embolization group were significantly lower than those in the non-embolization group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups were found for the other endoleak rates (OR = 0.67, 95% CI (0.34,1.32), P = 0.25), mortality (OR = 0.64, 95% CI (0.25,1.66), P = 0.36) and operation time operation (MD = 5.76, 95% CI (-8.30,19.83), P = 0.42).

Conclusions

EVAR combined with sac embolization effectively reduces the incidence of type II endoleak and the reintervention rate without enhancing the operation time. Therefore, more high-quality studies are still needed for validation due to the limited amount and quality of included literature.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022365648.

Surgical Treatment of Sac Enlargement Due to Type II Endoleaks Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

An aneurysm sac enlargement caused by type II endoleak (T2EL) following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms may cause serious complications such as rupture. Consequently, methods that preoperatively prevent or postoperatively treat T2EL have been employed. When significant aneurysm enlargement occurs due to persistent T2EL, embolization is first performed through several access points. However, although these endovascular reinterventions have a high technical success rate and are safe, their effectiveness remains questionable. When such endovascular procedures fail to stabilize sac enlargement, open surgical conversion (OSC) becomes the last-resort treatment option. We review several strategies of OSC for the repair of T2EL following EVAR. Among the three main OSC procedures, namely, complete endograft removal, partial endograft removal, and complete endograft preservation, partial endograft removal under infrarenal clamping was considered the most appropriate owing to its less invasiveness and durability.

Technique of partial open surgical stent graft explantation with preservation of fenestrated stent graft component to treat recalcitrant type II endoleak

Fenestrated and branched stent grafts have been used with increasing frequency for endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms. Endoleaks are frequently encountered after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, with treatment indicated when associated with an enlarging aneurysm sac. When endovascular treatment fails, complex open surgical explantation will become necessary. We have reported the technique of partial graft explantation in a patient with a recalcitrant type II endoleak. Both the proximal fenestrated segment and the distal iliac limbs were preserved, and aortic control was obtained by clamping the infrarenal stent graft. This method allowed for more distal aortic cross-clamping and negated the need for visceral branch reimplantation.

Contemporary incidence, outcomes, and survival associated with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair conversion to open repair among Medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

The widespread application of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has ushered in an era of requisite postoperative surveillance and the potential need for reintervention. The national prevalence and results of EVAR conversion to open repair, however, remain poorly defined. The purpose of this analysis was to define the incidence of open conversion and its associated outcomes.

METHODS

The SVS Vascular Quality Initiative EVAR registry linked to Medicare claims via Vascular Implants Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network was queried for open conversions after initial EVAR procedures from 2003 to 2016. Cumulative conversion incidence within up to 5 years after EVAR and outcomes after open intervention were determined. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify independent predictors of conversion and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 15,937 EVAR patients, 309 (1.9%) underwent an open conversion: 43% (n = 132) early (<30 days) and 57% (n = 177) late (>30 days). The longitudinally observed rate of conversion was constant over time, as well as by geographic region. Independent predictors of conversion included female sex (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; P < .001), aneurysm diameter or more than 6.0 cm at the time of index EVAR (HR, 1.74; P < .001), nonelective repair (compared with elective presentation: HR, 1.72; P < .001), and aortouni-iliac repairs (HR, 2.19; P < .001). In contrast, adjunctive operative procedures such as endo-anchors or cuff extensions (HR, 0.62; P = .06) were protective against long-term conversion. Both early (HR, 1.6; P < .001) and late (HR, 1.26; P = .07) open conversions were associated with significant 30-day (total cohort, 15%) and 1-year mortality (total cohort, 25%). Patients undergoing open conversion experienced high rates of 30-day readmission (42%) and cardiac (45%), renal (32%), and pulmonary (30%) complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This large, registry-based analysis is among the first to document the incidence and outcomes for open conversion after EVAR in a national cohort with long-term follow-up. Importantly, women, patients with large aneurysms, and complex anatomy, as well as urgent or emergent EVARs are at an increased risk for open conversion. It seems that more conversions are performed in the early postoperative period, despite perceptions that conversion is a delayed phenomenon. In all instances, conversion is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and highlights the importance of appropriate patient selection at the time of index EVAR.

Two decades of experience in explantation and graft preserving strategies following primary endovascular aneurysm repair and lessons learned

Objectives

We aim to scrutinize our evolving re-intervention strategies following primary endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) - EVAR GORE SalvAge Fabric Technique (ARAFAT), aortic sac double breasting with endograft preservation, and stent-graft explantation.

Methods

We performed 1,555 aortic interventions over the study period, including 910 EVARs. Factors associated with the need for reintervention and the likelihood of chronic fabric fatigue failure (CFFF) were investigated. Using conventional and innovative diagnostic modalities with Prone contrASt enHanced computed tomography Angiography (PASHA), 136 endoleaks (ELs) were identified (15 type I, 98 type II; 18 type III; 5 type IV).

Results

Forty-four (4.84%) patients underwent re-intervention post-primary EVAR; 18 ARAFATs, 12 double breastings, and 14 explantations. Choice of re-intervention was based on patient fitness and mode of failure. Mean EL detection duration following primary EVAR was 53.3 ± 6.82 months, while mean time to re-intervention was 70.20 ± 6.98 months. The mean sac size before the primary EVAR and re-intervention was 6.00 ± 1.75 cm and 7.51 ± 1.94 cm, respectively. Polyester (61.40%) was the most commonly employed stent-graft material. Use of more than three modular stent-graft components (3.42 ± 1.31, p = 0.846); with the proximal stent-graft diameter of 31.6 ± 3.80 cm (p = 0.651) and the use of iliac limbs more than 17 mm (p = 0.364), all added together are contributing factors. We had one peri-operative mortality following explantation due to sepsis-induced multiorgan failure.

Conclusions

Our re-intervention strategies matured from stent graft explantation to graft preservation with endovascular relining of the stent-graft. Graft preservation with aortic sacotomy and double breasting were used to manage concealed ELs due to aortic hygroma.

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Endovascular Treatment Of Type 2 Endoleaks

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a safe and minimally invasive alternative to open surgical repair for infra renal aortic aneuvrysm. EVAR requires lifelong post-procedural surveillance. Endoleaks represent the main complication. Type II endoleaks (EL2) are the most frequent and tend to be indolent. Most practitioners do not treat in EL2 as long as they are associated with stable aneurysm diameter. European guidelines recommend treatment in case of aneurysm growth. Several techniques can be offered, such as transarterial embolization and translumbar embolization. This study reports the experience and results of a single center for EL2 endovascular treatment. The aim of this study was to determine more precisely the efficacity of embolization for type 2 endoleaks treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single center cohort of patients treated for EL2 with endovascular technique between 1998 and 2018 was formed to perform a descriptive analysis. Preoperative sizing, risk factors of endoleaks and intraoperative data were collected. CT scans were regularly performed after EVAR to detect endoleak recurrence. Clinical recurrence was defined as the persistence of aneurysm sac growth and radiological recurrence was defined as the occurrence of EL2 on a post-embolization CT scan. Data related to reintervention, overall mortality and aneurysm related mortality were also collected. Kaplan Meier survival analyses were used to determine the rates of reoperation-free survival and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Six hundred seven patients underwent an endovascular treatment for abdominal aorta aneurysm between 1998 and 2018. One hundred forty-five type 2 endoleaks occurred during this period. Nineteen patients (median age 76 years), underwent endovascular treatment for EL2, with immediate success on 15 patients (8 transarterial embolization, 8 direct sac puncture and 3 combined procedures). During follow-up, 5 patients required a new translumbar embolization and 6 required an open surgery for recurrence of the EL2. Six patients died, 2 of them of causes related to the aneurysm. At 59,6 months median follow-up, 53% of the patients presented a radiologic recurrence, with a sac growth of more than 5 mm since last procedure in 4 patients (24%).

CONCLUSION

Long term clinical recurrence of type 2 endoleaks treated by endovascular procedures appear to be frequent in our experience, leading to several deaths and requiring open surgical treatment.

[Abdominal aortic aneurysms-open vs. endovascular treatment : Decision-making from the perspective of the vascular surgeon]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

In the last 20 years, the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms has essentially evolved from surgical to minimally invasive endovascular treatment.

ACHIEVEMENTS

There are still a number of clinical situations that make surgical intervention useful or even necessary. This underlines the importance of interdisciplinary vascular centers for the treatment of complex aortic pathologies and their sequelae.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

In the following article, the arguments for the choice of procedure for the treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms are discussed and the recommendations of various guidelines are compared.

Efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in detection of type II endoleak after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: A prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in detection of type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

From January 2015 to April 2018, 205 patients underwent EVAR were included. CEUS and computed tomography angiography (CTA) were performed at 1-month follow-up postoperatively to detect type II endoleak. CEUS was performed at 3- and 6-month follow-up to evaluate the development of type II endoleak. The diameter extension of type II endoleak increased greater than 5 mm was defined as enlarge group, and that increased less than 5 mm was defined as stable group. The difference of arrival time (AT) of contrast agent, maximum cross-sectional area (MCSA) of contrast agent and the blood flow velocity (BFV) of the abnormal blood around the stent graft were compared.

RESULTS

At 1-month after EVAR, 65 cases of endoleak were detected by CEUS, including 25 cases of type I, 30 cases of type II endoleak and 10 cases of type III endoleak. Among them, 50 cases were also detected by CTA. The diameter extension of 12 cases of type II endoleak increased greater than 5 mm, and that of eight cases increased less than 5 mm. The average AT of the enlarge group was significantly shorter than that of the stable group, while the MCSA of contrast agent and the BFV were significantly higher than that of the stable group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CEUS has predictive value for the natural outcome of type II endoleak.

Endovascular Aneurysm Repair With AFX Stent-Grafts or Tube Grafts for Sacciform Infrarenal Pathologies in a Narrow Aortic Anatomy

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients treated with tube grafts and AFX stent-graft in the narrow infrarenal aortic anatomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) or sacciform aneurysms of the infrarenal aorta and an aortic bifurcation diameter ≤20 mm who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with bifurcated AFX or tube stent-grafts (TUBE) between 2012 and 2020 were included. Demographic data and the outcome of the AFX group were compared with the TUBE group. All morphological measurements in the preoperative and postoperative computed tomography scans were performed in the aortic centerline.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (female: 12/51; 29%; median age: 72 years [63, 77]) with a median follow-up of 10 (3, 39) months, were included, of whom 35/51 (69%) had PAUs and 11/51 were symptomatic (22%). The aortic bifurcation diameter was 17 mm (15, 18) with severe calcifications in 25/51 (49%). The distal aortic landing zone was longer in the TUBE group (9 mm vs 24 mm; p<0.001). The technical success was 96% with a median aneurysm shrinkage of 8% (3, 13), which was comparable between the groups (p=0.264). Periprocedural mortality, conversion to open surgery, myocardial infarction, and stroke were not observed. Two type Ia endoleaks (EL) and 2 type Ib EL occurred, all in the TUBE group (Type 1 EL; 19 vs 0%; p=0.013). The limb patency in the AFX group was 100%. One patient with a tube graft developed an infrarenal aortic thrombosis 40 months after the intervention. The reintervention rate in the TUBE group was higher (14 vs 0%; p=0.032) and included 3 aortic cuff implantations and 1 covered endovascular aortic reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB).

CONCLUSION

AFX stent-graft showed a lower rate of type I endoleaks and reinterventions in sacciform infrarenal aortic pathologies during the early and midterm follow-up.

Early and late results of open surgical and endovascular treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms, selected according to surgical risk

Background

Open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) surgery are alternative treatments for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (IRAAA).

Objectives

To compare OSR and EVAR for the treatment of IRAAA.

Methods

119 patients with IRAAA were electively operated by the same surgeon between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015, following selection for OSR or EVAR according to surgical risk. Complications, reinterventions, failures, and early and late mortality were analyzed.

Results

63 OSR and 56 EVAR patients were analyzed. They were similar in terms of age (70 years), gender (92% men), and average diameter of IRAAA (6.5 cm), but with different comorbidities, surgical risk, and anatomy. EVAR was better than OSR regarding time in the operating theatre (177.5 vs. 233.3 minutes), need for transfusion (25 vs. 73%), and length of stay in ICU (1.3 vs. 3.3 days) and hospital (8.1 vs. 11.1 days). OSR allowed more associated procedures to be conducted simultaneously (19.0 vs. 1.8%). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to complications (25.4 vs. 25.1%), reinterventions (3.2 vs. 5.2%), or early mortality (1.6 vs. 0%). During follow-up, OSR was associated with fewer revisions (3.13 vs. 4.21), angio-CTs (0.22 vs. 3.23), complications (6.4 vs. 37.5%), reinterventions (3.2 vs. 23.2%), and failures (1.6 vs. 10.7%), and had better survival (78.2 vs. 63.2%).

Conclusions

Correct selection of patients achieves excellent results because it avoids OSR in patients at high risk and avoids EVAR in patients with high anatomical complexity, achieving similar results in the perioperative period, but better results for OSR over the course of follow-up.

A systematic review of the current status of interventions for type II endoleak after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To study the mid- and long-term outcomes of type II endoleak treatment after EVAR and the technical aspects of different techniques to exclude endoleaks which different embolic agents.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the approach recommended by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for meta-analyses of interventional studies. The comprehensive search was conducted using the following database: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Patient characteristic, intervention approaches, embolic agents, and results at mid and long term follow up were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies corresponding to a total of 141 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria with a mean age of 73-78.6 years and a mean duration of follow up varying from 25 to 42 months. There were different techniques for embolization used (translumbar, transarterial, and transcaval approach) with various types of embolic agents. In all studies, the indication for embolization of the type II endoleaks was sac enlargement of more than 5 mm. A wide range of technical success rate was reported regardless of the intervention strategy being used (17,6%-100%). The overall technical success rate of all studies was 62%.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows that there is a wide variety of techniques to exclude a persistent type II endoleak. Different kinds of embolic agents have be used. Due to a lack of peer reviewed data on longterm follow-up, it was not possible to come to recommendations what treatment would be the best for a durable exclusion of a persistent type II endoleak after an initially successful EVAR. There remains an urgent need for proper executed studies, either randomized or with close observation in relation to longer follow-up.

[The Prophylaxis of Type 2 Endoleaks is Relevant for Long Term Success of EVAR]

One out of 8 patients needs a reintervention after EVAR during the first 5 years. Two thirds of secondary interventions aim at treating endoleaks. The prevalence of complications doubles in the presence of endoleaks. Fourth generation stent grafts do not lead to a decrease in Type 2-associated reinterventions, but to better prevention of Type 1 and 3 endoleaks. Pretreatment of potential type 2 feeding arteries with embolising agents and treatment of the occurrence of type 2 endoleaks.

Effectiveness of collateral arteries embolization before endovascular aneurysm repair to prevent type II endoleaks: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of preventive collateral arteries embolization before endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to reduce type II endoleaks (T2EL), aneurysm enlargement, and re-interventions.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase was conducted to identify articles in English, related to preventive collateral arteries embolization before EVAR, published until October 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 12 relevant studies, including 11 retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial, were identified and fulfilled the specified inclusion criteria. A total of 1706 patients in 11 studies were involved in the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of T2EL was 17.3% in the embolization group vs. 34.5% in the control group (OR 0.36, p < 0.01). The incidence of persistent T2EL was 15.3% vs. 30.0% (OR 0.37, p < 0.01). Five studies reported the incidence of sac enlargement, with the rate 10.2% vs. 24.9% (OR 0.25, p < 0.01). Nine studies reported T2EL related re-interventions, and it was 1.3% in the embolization group and 10.4% in control (OR 0.14, p < 0.01). The technical success of collateral arteries embolization was 92.1% (455/494) in the 12 studies. 1.2% (10/829) patients suffered a mild complication of collateral arteries embolization, and 2/829 patients died because of the embolization.

CONCLUSION

Collateral arteries embolization is a promising measure to prevent the occurrence of T2EL, sac enlargement, and re-intervention. High-quality studies need to be conducted to provide stronger evidence-based medical suggestions about the embolize operation.

The fate of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair and the impact of oral anticoagulation on their persistence

BACKGROUND

The impact of anticoagulation on late endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is unclear despite multiple investigators studying the relationship. The purpose of this study was to determine if long-term anticoagulation impacted the development of late endoleaks and if specific anticoagulants were more likely to exacerbate the development of endoleaks.

METHODS

Using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database, patients undergoing EVAR between 2003 and 2019 for abdominal aortic aneurysms were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups: those without a late endoleak and those with a late endoleak. Bivariate analysis was performed to assess preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and long-term follow-up variables. A multivariable analysis was done to determine associations of independent variables with late endoleaks. Patients were further subcategorized based on anticoagulation status before and after EVAR, specific type of anticoagulation, and the presence of an index endoleaks (diagnosed at the time of EVAR) to determine the subsequent frequency of late endoleaks.

RESULTS

A total of 29,783 patients were analyzed with 2169 (7.3%) having a late endoleak identified. Several risk factors were related to late endoleaks, including anticoagulation before and after EVAR (odds ratio [OR], 4.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.57-6.96; P < .001), anticoagulation after EVAR (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.43-2.49; P < .001), and index endoleak (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.26-1.66; P < .001). The frequency of late endoleaks in patients anticoagulated before and after EVAR and after EVAR as compared with those never anticoagulated was 16.89% and 14.40% vs 6.95%, respectively (both P > .001). No difference in late endoleaks were noted for patients treated with warfarin and novel oral anticoagulants. The most common type of index and late endoleak identified was type II, but patients with type I, type II, and type IV index endoleaks were more commonly found to have type I, type II, and type IV late endoleaks, respectively. The frequency of late endoleaks in patients with both an index endoleak and anticoagulation after EVAR was 20.42% as compared with patients with only anticoagulation after EVAR (14.63%; P = .0015) and with patients with index endoleaks not anticoagulated (10.06%; P < .00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Late endoleaks were more common in patients treated with anticoagulation after EVAR. No difference in late endoleak frequency was detected between anticoagulation with warfarin and novel oral anticoagulants. Patients on anticoagulation and those with an index endoleak were at a higher risk of having a late endoleak.

Impact of Instructions for Use and Endoleaks On Long-Term Mortality After Treatment for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

OBJECTIVES

We reported the clinical outcomes after open repair and endovascular aortic repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm and analyzed the risk factors for all-cause mortality and endoleak after endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm from January 2009 to March 2020 were included in this study. The treatment was according to a procedure selection algorithm based on the Society for Vascular Surgery comorbidity scores and instructions for use. All patients were divided into open repair and endovascular aortic repair groups, and the clinical results were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Of the 278 patients, 116 patients (41.9%) underwent open repair, and 161 patients (58.1%) underwent endovascular aortic repair. The cumulative survival rate with endovascular aortic repair was 78.6%. In the Cox proportional hazard analysis, hemodialysis (hazard ratio = 4.56; 95% confidence interval = 1.5-14.0) and the presence of type I or III endoleak (hazard ratio = 5.7; 95% confidence interval = 1.50-14.5) were independent risk factors for all-cause mortality. The Society for Vascular Surgery comorbidity score was not an independent risk factor (hazard ratio = 1.11; 95% confidence interval = 1.0-1.2). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify the risk factors for type I or III endoleak after endovascular aortic repair, anticoagulation drug therapy (odds ratio = 3.99; 95% confidence interval = 1.8-8.9), untreated thoracic aortic aneurysm (odds ratio = 4.8; 95% confidence interval = 1.8-17.3), and outside instruction for use for the proximal neck (odds ratio = 5.8; 95% confidence interval = 2.3-9.8) were independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

We analyzed the risk factors for all-cause mortality after treatment and endoleak after endovascular aortic repair. The results indicated that the instructions for use should be respected to reduce the frequency of endoleaks and that open repair should be chosen more often to improve late survival.

Predictive Value of Preprocedural Computed Tomography Angiography for the Technical Success of Transarterial Embolization of Type II Endoleaks Arising from the Lumbar Arteries

PURPOSE

To evaluate the ability of preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) to predict the technical success of embolization of type II endoleak arising from a lumbar artery after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients at a single academic institution who underwent angiography with possible embolization for a post-EVAR lumbar-supplied type II endoleak from 2009 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who did not undergo CTA before the procedure were excluded. CTAs were reviewed for the ability to trace the entire course of a feeding vessel from the internal iliac artery (IIA) to the lumbar artery at the site of the endoleak. Procedural imaging was reviewed for technical success, defined as the catheterization and embolization of the aneurysm sac through a lumbar artery.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven angiograms with a type II endoleak and suspected feeding lumbar artery were identified. On CTA acquired before the procedure, the arterial path supplying this lumbar artery could be traced from the IIA to the aneurysm sac in 18 (32%) patients. Embolization was technically successful in 16 of these 18 (89%) procedures compared with 10 of 39 (26%) procedures in which the supplying artery could not be traced using CTA (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A potential catheter path from the IIA through the iliolumbar and lumbar arteries to the aneurysm sac can be traced on preprocedural CTA in the minority of lumbar-supplied type II endoleaks. The ability to trace these inflow vessels may predict technical success during embolization. The low rate of technical success when the feeding vessel could not be traced using CTA suggests that these patients should be considered for percutaneous or transcaval sac puncture.

Platelet Count Recovery after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Objective: To find a new predictor of endoleak (EL) and aneurysm sac expansion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), we evaluated the platelet count recovery (PCR) process after EVAR.

Materials and Methods: Two hundred five patients treated with elective EVAR from 2007 to 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. We compared the platelet count ratio until postoperative day (POD) 7 to the presurgical baseline between patients with and without persistent EL (≥ 6 months). Subsequently, we calculated the optimal platelet count ratio for distinguishing persistent EL using receiver-operating characteristics analysis. A platelet count ratio on POD7 ≥118% was defined as the PCR. We evaluated the PCR’s influence on the cumulative aneurysm sac expansion rate.

Results: The average platelet count ratio on POD7 rose above baseline (112%), and the ratio was attenuated by persistent EL (103%). Of 205 patients, 126 (61%) were assigned to the disturbed PCR group (PCR(−) group). Cumulative aneurysm sac expansion rate was higher in the PCR(−) group than the PCR(+) group (34.4% vs. 12.8% in 5 years, p=0.01).

Conclusion: Disturbed PCR after EVAR may be associated with ELs and eventual aneurysm sac expansion.

Open repair of a type II endoleak facilitated by temporary disconnection of graft components

Endoleaks are a frequent indication for reintervention after endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Here we present a method of open repair of a persistent type II endoleak involving graft component separation and reconstruction, in a patient with symptomatic interval aneurysmal sac enlargement despite endovascular coiling and embolization. This case report demonstrates an alternative open technique of endograft component separation and reconstruction that may be required in cases where open repair with sac exploration and vessel oversewing is hindered by the graft position.

Strategy to avoid open surgical conversion after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

Purpose

Open surgical conversion (OSC) is the last treatment option for patients with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)failure. We investigated the underlying causes of EVAR failure requiring OSC and attempted to determine strategies to avoid OSC after EVAR.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the database of patients who underwent OSC after EVAR from 2005 to 2018 in a single institution. Twenty-six OSCs were performed in 24 patients (median age, 74.5 years; 79.2% of males) who had undergone standard EVAR. We investigated pre-, intra-, and postoperative computed tomography or angiographic images and outcomes of the OSCs.

Results

Two main indications for OSC were persistent endoleak (50.0%) and endograft infection (EI) (38.5%). All 13 patients who underwent OSC due to endoleaks received EVAR outside of indications for use. Among 10 patients who underwent OSC due to EI, we found overlooked infection sources in 7 (70.0%) at the time of EVAR or during the surveillance period. OSC was performed at a median of 31.8 months (interquartile range, 9.4-69.8) after EVAR as an emergency (15.4%) or elective (84.6%) surgery. Aortic endograft was removed in 84.6% of cases (totally, 57.7%; partially, 26.9%), whereas it was preserved in 4 cases (15.4%). After 26 OSCs, 2 early deaths (7.7%) and 2 aortoenteric fistulae (7.7%) developed as major complications.

Conclusion

OSC after EVAR was associated with relatively higher perioperative morbidity and mortality. To avoid OSC after EVAR, we recommend careful assessment of coexisting infection sources and avoidance of EVAR for patients with especially unfavorable anatomy for EVAR, particularly the in proximal neck.

Endovascular repair of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular aneurysm repair due type IB endoleak associated with a late fistula between the abdominal aorta and a retroaortic left renal vein

A ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular aneurysm repair with an arteriovenous fistula between the aneurysm sac and a retroaortic left renal vein is an extremely rare complication. This case describes an 81-year-old man who developed an aorto-left renal vein fistula owing to a type IB endoleak 2 years after endovascular aneurysm exclusion. The leak was repaired with a left endograft limb extension. Endovascular techniques are attractive and feasible alternatives and can play an essential role in reinterventions. This report is the first of an aorto-left renal vein fistula owing a type IB endoleak after an endovascular aneurysm repair.

Risk Factors for Early and Late Type Ib Endoleak Following Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

A type Ib endoleak (T1bEL) is a postoperative complication that usually requires additional interventions following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Previous studies have focused on iliac artery tortuosity or common iliac artery (CIA) diameter. However, we investigated the various risk factors for early and late T1bELs more comprehensively.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study of a prospectively maintained database compared anatomical, demographic and technical factors between patients with early or late T1bELs and a control group. Early T1bEL was defined as a T1bEL occurring within 6 months of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), while late T1bEL was defined as a T1bEL, initially identified more than 6 months after EVAR. Anatomical values including neck diameter, length, and angle; maximum sac diameter and length; CIA length, diameter, and tortuosity; and distal sealing length were measured and included in the analysis. We performed uni- and multivariable analyses using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

This study included 635 iliac limbs of 383 patients. Overall, T1bELs occurred in 22 iliac limbs during the follow-up period (22/635, 3.5%). Among them, the early and late T1bEL groups each included 11 limbs. The median follow-up duration of the 383 patients was 23 (8-58) months, and in the early T1bEL and early control groups, the durations were 15 (9-35) and 29 (15-60) months, respectively (P = 0.01). The median overall follow-up durations in the late T1bEL and late control groups were 87 (76-102) and 62 (48-80) months, respectively (P = 0.01). The median follow-up duration until the occurrence of late T1bEL was 44 (32-82) months, which was shorter than that of the late control group (P = 0.03). No significant differences in sex, age, or brand of stent-graft were observed between the T1bEL and control groups. In the multivariable analysis, patients in the early T1bEL group had significantly more tortuous and short CIAs, and short distal sealing lengths (P = 0.02, P = 0.04, P = 0.03, respectively), and the late T1bEL group had significantly larger maximum aortic aneurysm sac diameters, short CIAs and short distal sealing lengths (P < 0.001, P = 0.02, P = 0.002, respectively). The suspected mechanisms of the T1bELs were CIA dilatation with or without sac expansion and aggravation of sac angulation. Except for one patient with aortic dissection, T1bELs were treated with iliac limb extensions.

CONCLUSIONS

The various mechanisms of T1bELs differed depending on the time of onset from the procedure. An extensive sealing length may be protective against T1bEL, especially when the size of the aortic aneurysm sac is large or when the CIA has risky features, including large diameter or short length. Careful preoperative consideration of aortic aneurysm size and CIA length and tortuosity is essential, and patients with risky features should undergo strict postoperative surveillance.

Type II Endoleaks After EVAR: A Literature Review of Current Concepts

Endoleak is the most frequent complication following endovascular aneurysm repair, which is not present in the surgical counterpart. The most frequent type of endoleak corresponds to type II, and its natural history remains poorly understood. Therefore, their treatment continues to be a topic of debate. The vast majority of the studies found in the literature are of a retrospective nature, and there are no prospective studies comparing intervention versus a conservative approach. Future studies should aim to compare not only different approaches to resolve type II endoleak but also when should be the right time to treat them, with the primary purpose of avoiding sac rupture. The objective of this review is to provide the reader with a literature overview about type II endoleaks to help in the decision-making process on this topic.

The association between perioperative embolization of hypogastric arteries and type II endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Type II endoleaks (T2ELs) are the most common type of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The iliolumbar artery arising from the hypogastric artery is often a major source of T2ELs, and transarterial embolization of the iliolumbar artery through the hypogastric artery is sometimes performed to interrupt sac expansion during follow-up. Considering the equivocal results of an association between hypogastric embolization and T2ELs in previous studies, this topic has re-emerged after the advent of iliac branch devices. This study reviewed our series to clarify whether hypogastric embolization is associated with T2ELs at 12 months after EVAR.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective EVAR between June 2007 and May 2017 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) at 12 months were included. Patients in whom CTA revealed type I or type III endoleaks during follow-up, who required reinterventions before 12 months, and who had solitary iliac aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of T2ELs at 12 months after EVAR. The associations of patients' characteristics, anatomic factors, hypogastric embolization, and type of endograft with the primary outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 375 patients were enrolled. During the median follow-up of 59.5 months (interquartile range, 19-126 months), 40 patients died, and 50 reinterventions were performed. In 108 patients (28.8%), either hypogastric artery was embolized to extend distal landings to the external iliac artery. Bilateral and unilateral embolization was performed in nine and 99 patients, respectively. In total, 153 patients (40.8%) had T2ELs found by CTA at 12 months. In the univariate analysis, the status of hypogastric artery occlusion or embolization was not significantly different between patients with and without T2ELs. However, there were not enough patients to detect a 10% difference in T2ELs with >80% statistical power. In the multivariate analysis, significant associations with T2EL were observed for female sex (P = .049), patent inferior mesenteric artery (P = .006), and presence of five or more patent lumbar arteries (P < .001) but not for hypogastric embolization. In addition, compared with the Zenith (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) endograft, the Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) endograft was significantly related to T2EL (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant association between hypogastric embolization and T2EL was demonstrated in this retrospective study, which lacked adequate statistical power.

Type 2 Endoleaks: Common and Hard to Eradicate yet Benign?

PURPOSE

The exact significance of type 2 endoleaks (T2ELs) and the indication and efficacy of treatment are widely debated. We report our experience with managing T2ELs in a tertiary Asian centre.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) between February 2006 and December 2016. Patients with T2ELs were identified, and their data were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients underwent EVAR, of which 67 (42.9%) developed T2ELs. Seven were lost to follow-up. The remaining 60 patients had a mean follow-up period of 50.3 ± 33.9 months-34 (56.7%) experienced T2ELs early and the rest (43.3%) had late T2ELs. Forty-one patients had isolated T2EL, whilst 19 had concomitant T1EL and/or T3EL. Spontaneous resolution occurred in 25 patients (41.7%). All T2ELs with stable sac size were on continued surveillance. Amongst those with persistent T2ELs associated with sac growth (n = 17), 14 underwent intervention, of which 7 (50%) received > 1 embolisation procedure. A total of 16 transarterial embolisation and 8 translumbar embolisation procedures were performed. Technical success rate was 75%. In the intervention group, 5 (35.7%) had complete and sustained resolution, 7 had persistent/recurrent T2ELs but stable sac size, and 2 had progressive sac expansion. Overall mortality due to sac rupture occurred in 2 patients with concomitant T2EL and T1EL/T3EL.

CONCLUSION

T2ELs are common, albeit mostly benign if occurring in isolation and not in association with sac growth. Achieving complete T2EL resolution with embolisation is difficult even with reinterventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2B, retrospective study.

Translumbar Embolization of Type II Endoleaks: 12 Years of Experience at a Regional Vascular Centre

Background and Aims:

The management of persistent type II endoleaks (T2E) is often problematic for the endovascular specialist, with a lack of clear evidence for the best approach for embolization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of translumbar embolization (TLE) for T2E following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

Methods:

This retrospective review included 27 embolizations performed on 23 patients with a median age of 78 (range 67-94 years; male: female 15:9), during the period September 2006 to July 2018. Primary outcome was freedom from aneurysm sac growth defined as <2 mm sac diameter increase on subsequent computed tomography.

Results:

The initial technical success rate was 100%, with complete “on table” embolization of the T2E on fluoroscopy; however, 4 (15%) patients needed repeat TLE due to persistent endoleak identified on follow-up computed tomography or because of further sac expansion. Satisfactory stasis was achieved in these 4 cases following a second embolization. The mean volume of embolic injected was 7.4 mL per case. Feeding vessels were identified on angiography in all cases; the nidus was supplied by lumbar branches in 21 cases, by the inferior mesenteric artery in 1 case and by both in a further 5 cases. Freedom from aneurysm sac growth (defined as < 2 mm) following 1 or 2 separate TLE was achieved in 18 (78%) and 20 (86%) patients, respectively. The major complication rate was <5% with one case of psoas abscess presenting 7 months following embolization; there were 2 minor complications in the form of intraprocedural transient abdominal pain.

Conclusion:

The translumbar approach is a safe and effective technique to treat T2E, as evidenced by the low complication and reintervention rate.

Endovascular treatment of para-anastomotic aneurysms after open abdominal aortic surgery

INTRODUCTION

The repair of long-term complications of open abdominal aortic repair such as para-anastomotic aneurysm (PAA) and pseudoaneurysm (PSA) is very challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of endovascular repair of PAA/PSA after previous open aortic surgery for aneurismal or occlusive disease.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was undertaken; a search was performed (PRISMA) in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Cochrane databases and key references of all studies of endovascular treatment of PAA/PSA after open aortic surgery.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eighteen studies included totally 433 patients (86.3% males) with mean age of 71±2.5 years were identified. Most of the patients were asymptomatic (76%) and diagnosed with PAA (60.5%), while 81.6% had history of open aortic reconstruction for aneurismal disease. The mean diameter of para-anastomotic aneurysms was 59.7 mm (from 23 mm to 110 mm) and the mean duration until their diagnosis was 10±2 years. Standard bifurcated (23.7%), fenestrated (23.4%) and aorto-uni-iliac stent-grafts (16.3%) were mostly used. The technical success rate was 97.8% (391/400) with 1.4% (6/433) 30 day-mortality rate and mean hospital stay of 6±3 days. The mean 1- and 2- year survival rate was 87.8% and 78.8%, respectively. The follow-up ranged from 9 to 43 months, with presenting complications such as endoleak type I (24/378; 6.3%), type II (15/354; 4.3%), type III (3/378;0.8%), migration (4/378; 1%) and limb occlusion (5/310;1.6%). Additionally, 5.7% (19/332) of the patients underwent open conversion, while the total re-intervention rate was 11.4% (39/340; time of reintervention ranged from 7 to 30 months). In cases in which a stent was used for splanchnic vessels (renal artery: 188, superior mesenteric artery: 98, celiac artery: 64), the primary patency rate was 97.4% (341/350).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment of PAAs and PSAs after previous open aortic surgery is a feasible and efficient option with high technical success rate, low 30-day mortality and good mid-term outcomes.