Surgical treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients treated for expanding aneurysm sacs with type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair

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.

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcaval Embolization for Type 2 Endoleak after Endovascular Aortic Repair

Background: Among the endovascular approaches for the management of endoleak type 2 (EL 2), transcaval embolization (TCE) has shown encouraging outcomes. However, the literature is still limited. This study aimed to present the early and mid-term outcomes of TCE for EL 2 after endovascular aortic repair. Methods: A retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive patients managed with TCE for EL 2 after standard or complex endovascular aortic repair, from August 2015 to March 2024, was conducted. The indication for TCE was the presence of an EL 2 related to ≥5 mm sac increase, compared to the first imaging after aneurysm exclusion or the smallest diameter during follow-up. Patients managed with TCE for other types of endoleaks were excluded. The primary outcomes were technical and clinical successes during follow-up. Results: Forty-three patients were included (mean age: 75.1 ± 6.0 years, 90.7% males). Technical success was 97.7%. Selective embolization was performed in 48.8% and non-selective in 51.2%. No death was recorded at 30 days. The estimated clinical success was 90.0% (standard error; SE: 6.7%) and the freedom from EL 2 was 89.0% (SE 6.4%) at 36 months. Cox regression analysis showed that the type of embolization (selective vs. non-selective), type of previous repair (f/bEVAR vs. EVAR), and use of anticoagulants did not affect follow-up outcomes. Reinterventions related to EL 2 were performed in 12.5%; three underwent an open conversion. Conclusions: TCE was related to high technical success and limited peri-operative morbidity, regardless of the type of initial endovascular aortic repair. Clinical success was encouraging with reinterventions for EL 2 affecting 12.5% of patients.

Type II endoleaks after fenestrated/branched endografting for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Persistent type II endoleaks (pEL2s) are not uncommon after endovascular aneurysm repair and their impact on long-term outcomes is well-documented. However, their occurrence and natural history after fenestrated/branched endografting (F/B-EVAR) for juxtarenal and pararenal aneurysms (J/P-AAAs) have been scarcely investigated. Aim of this study was to report incidence, risk factors, and natural history of pEL2 after F/B-EVAR in J/P-AAAs.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2022, all J/P-AAAs undergoing F/B-EVAR were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. EL2 were assessed at the completion angiography, at 30 days and after 6 months as primary outcomes. Preoperative risk factors for pEL2, follow-up survival, freedom from reinterventions (FFR) and aneurysm shrinkage (≥5 mm) were considered as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 132 patients, there were 88 (67%) JAAAs and 44 (33%) PAAAs. Seventeen EL2 (13%) were detected at the completion angiography and 36 (27%) at 30-day computed tomography angiography. The mean follow-up was 28 ± 23 months. Eleven (31%) EL2 sealed spontaneously within 6 months and three new cases were detected, for an overall of 28 pEL2/107 patients (26%) with available radiological follow-up of ≥6 months. Preoperative antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI[, 1-22.1; P = .05), aneurysm thrombus volume of ≤40% and six or more patent aneurysm afferent vessels (odds ratio, 7.2; 95% CI, 1.8-29.1; P = .005) were independent risk factors for pEL2. The estimated 3-year survival was 80%, with no difference between cases with and without pEL2 (78% vs 85%; P = .08). The estimated 3-year FFR was 86%, with no difference between cases with and without pEL2 (81% vs 87%; P = .41). Four cases (3%) of EL2-related reinterventions were performed. In 65 cases (49%), aneurysm shrinkage was detected. pEL2 was an independent risk factor for absence of aneurysm shrinkage during follow-up (hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-8.3; P = .014). Patients without shrinkage had lower follow-up survival (64% vs 86% at 3-year; P = .009) and FFR (74% vs 90% at 3 years; P = .014) than patients with shrinkage.

CONCLUSIONS

PEL2 is not infrequent (26%) after F/B-EVAR for J/P-AAAs and is correlated with preoperative antiplatelet therapy, aneurysm thrombus volume of ≤40%, and six or more patent sac afferent vessels. Patients with pEL2 have a diminished aneurysm shrinkage, which is correlated with lower follow-up survival and FFR compared with patients with aneurysm shrinkage.

Reinterventions and sac dynamics after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with physician-modified endografts for index aneurysm repair and following proximal failure of prior endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The high frequency of reinterventions after fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) with physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) has been well-studied. However, the impact of prior EVAR on reinterventions and sac behavior following these procedures remains unknown. We analyzed 3-year rates of reinterventions and sac dynamics following PMEG for index aneurysm repair compared with PMEG for prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive FEVARs with PMEGs at a tertiary care center submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in support of an investigational device exemption trial. We excluded patients with aortic dissection (n = 5), type I to III thoracoabdominal aneurysms (n = 13), non-elective procedures (n = 4), and prior aortic surgery other than EVAR (n = 8), for a final cohort of 92 patients. Patients were divided into those who underwent PMEG for index aneurysm repair (primary FEVAR) and those who underwent PMEG for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal (secondary FEVAR). The primary outcomes were freedom from reintervention and sac dynamics (regression as ≥5 mm decrease, expansion as ≥5 mm increase, and stability as <5 mm increase or decrease) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality and 3-year survival.

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients included, 56 (61%) underwent primary FEVAR and 36 (39%) underwent secondary FEVAR. Secondary FEVAR patients were older (78 years [interquartile range (IQR), 74.5-83.5 years] vs 73 years [IQR, 69-78.5 years]; P < .001), more frequently male (86% vs 68%; P = .048), and had larger aneurysms (72.5 mm [IQR, 65.5-81 mm] vs 59 mm [IQR, 55-65 mm]; P < .001). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% for primary FEVAR and 2.7% for secondary FEVAR (P = .75). At 3 years, overall survival was 84% for primary FEVAR and 71% for secondary FEVAR (P = .086). Freedom-from reintervention was significantly higher for primary FEVAR than secondary FEVAR, specifically 82% vs 38% at 3 years (P < .001). Primary FEVAR also had more desirable sac dynamics relative to secondary FEVAR at 3 years (primary: 54% stable, 46% regressed, 0% expanded vs secondary: 33% stable, 28% regressed, and 39% expanded; P = .038).

CONCLUSIONS

FEVAR for primary aortic repair and FEVAR for rescue of prior EVAR with loss of proximal seal are two distinct entities. Following primary FEVAR, less than a quarter of patients have undergone reintervention at 3 years, and sac expansion was not seen in our cohort. Comparatively, 3 years after secondary FEVAR, over one-half of patients have undergone reintervention and over one-third have had ongoing sac expansion. Vigilant surveillance and a low threshold for further interventions are crucial following secondary FEVAR.

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.

Pre-emptive False Lumen Embolization to Prevent Persistent Type II Endoleak in Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair of Post-Dissection Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

The purpose was to describe a technique to promote false lumen (FL) thrombosis in post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (PD-TAAAs) managed by fenestrated/branched endografting (F/B-EVAR).

TECHNIQUE

A 5/6Fr-90 cm length sheath is advanced from the true lumen (TL) to FL through the most distal entry tear of the infrarenal aorta or iliac arteries. It is parked in the most cranial portion of the FL in the thoracic aorta. Aortic endografts are deployed in the TL excluding all the para-visceral/distal entry tears and target visceral vessels bridging stenting is performed. A selective FL angiography is performed through the 5/6Fr sheath to detect the origin of all segmentary arteries. Embolization of FL is performed from above to below by M-reye pushable coils, obtaining the packaging of FL. After completion angiography, the 5/6Fr sheath is retrieved in external iliac artery and molding ballooning of the distal segment of the aortic/iliac endograft is performed. Between 2019 and 2023, this technique was applied in 11cases with a median number of 73 (interquartile range [IQR=12) coils. Out of 8 (72%) patients with available radiological follow-up at 1 year, 7 exhibited complete FL thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The FL coiling in PD-TAAAs managed by F/B-EVAR is feasible, safe, and effective to promote the complete FL thrombosis.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Preemptive false lumen embolization is a feasible, safe, and effective technique for preventing persistent type II endoleaks after fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. This technique may be routinely recommended to promote FL thrombosis and aortic remodeling after FB-EVAR in PD-TAAAs, thereby reducing the incidence of reinterventions during follow-up.

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.

Image Guidance Techniques and Treatment Approach Optimization in the Management of Type-II Endoleak After Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Over the past 3 decades endovascular aortic aneurysm repair emerged as the primary approach for abdominal aortic aneurysm management, however the occurrence of endoleak following endograft implantation imposes a high toll on patients and hospitals alike. The early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of endoleaks is associated with better outcomes, which calls for more advanced imaging and a standardized approach for endoleak diagnosis and management following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Although conventional strategy with non-targeted deployment of coils and embolic material in the aneurysm sac is considered to be the standard approach in many hospitals, it may not prove to be a viable option, given that it affects any further follow-up imaging in the event of sub-optimal therapy and consequent recurrence.

METHODS

Based on our tertiary aortic referral center experience we summarize and describe strategies for optimal selection of various treatment approaches for Type-II Endoleak management including endovascular, percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches with particular focus on intraoperative image guidance techniques.

RESULTS

After failed conventional endovascular embolization attempt we recommend specific complex type II endoleak management approaches based on the location of the endoleak within the aneurysm sac along the x, y and z axis. A transabdominal or laparoscopic approach enable treatment in endoleaks located in the anterior portion of the sac. Endoleaks in the posterior portion of the sac could be treated using the transcaval or the translumbar approach, depending on whether the endoleak is situated on the left or the right side. Alternative strategies should be considered if patient anatomy does not allow for either transcaval or translumbar approach. The transgraft technique is reserved for endoleaks located in the cranial portion of the sac, while the perigraft approach could present a means of treatment for endoleaks situated in the caudal portion of the aneurysm sac.

CONCLUSION

We encourage establishing a patient specific treatment plan in accordance with individual anatomy based on cross sectional imaging modality (time resolved dynamic imaging in selected cases) and intraoperative image guidance to provide a safe and accurate endoleak localization and embolization for patients undergoing type II endoleak treatment.

Initial two-day blood pressure management after endovascular aneurysm repair improves midterm outcomes by reducing the incidence of early type II endoleak

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate midterm outcomes of our novel strategy of postoperative initial 2-day blood pressure management (BPM) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for the prevention of subsequent type II endoleak (T2EL) in a single-center series.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2014, 137 patients who underwent EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were reviewed. Starting from 2013, the mean blood pressure was maintained between 75 and 90 mmHg for the initial 24 hours after EVAR followed by systolic pressure controlled below 120 mmHg during the next 24 hours in the treatment group (n = 76). The incidence of T2EL detected at 7 days, reintervention, and AAA sac diameter up to 5 years after EVAR were compared with those of the control group comprising of 60 consecutive patients who underwent standard EVAR without BPM prior to 2013.

RESULTS

Between the treatment group and the control group, significant differences were achieved in the incidence of T2EL at 7 days (19.7% vs 40.0%; P = .009), a mean decrease of AAA sac diameter at 1-year (-5.1 ± 4.9 vs -2.2 ± 6.7 mm; P = .013) and 2-year (-5.4 ± 7.7 vs -1.7 ± 10.8 mm; P = .045). In addition, there was a significant decrease in the incidence of T2EL detected at 7 days with the use of the Gore Excluder with 22.7% in the treatment group vs 80.0% in the control group (P < .001), which resulted in a significant decrease in the aneurysm sac diameter up to 4 years after EVAR. Survival rate without AAA sac enlargement at 5 years after EVAR (83.0% vs 70.0%; P = .021) in the treatment group was significantly higher than that of the control group, whereas no significant differences were observed in the freedom rates of reintervention, T2EL-related reintervention, and all-cause mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative initial 2-day BPM had a preventive effect on AAA sac enlargement until midterm periods, by reducing the incidence of T2EL at 7 days after EVAR. The usage of Gore Excluder under BPM was especially associated with sustained positive effects until the midterm follow-up.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

The impact of completion and follow-up endoleaks on survival, reintervention, and rupture

OBJECTIVE

Endoleaks may be seen at case completion of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), and the presence of an endoleak may impact outcomes. However, the clinical implications of various endoleaks seen during follow-up is not well-described. Therefore, we studied the impact of endoleaks at completion and at follow-up on mid-term outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed patients who underwent EVAR from 2003 to 2016 within the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare database and identified patients with endoleak at procedure completion and during follow-up, excluding those presenting with rupture. We stratified cohorts by presence of completion and follow-up endoleak subtypes. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, and secondary outcomes included 5-year freedom from reintervention and freedom from rupture. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests to analyze differences in time-to-event endpoints.

RESULTS

Of 21,745 patients with completion endoleak data, 5085 (23%) had an endoleak. Compared with those without endoleak, those with type I endoleaks had lower 5-year survival (69% vs 75%; P < .001), type II endoleaks had higher survival (79%; P < .001), and types III, IV, and indeterminate were not statistically different (73%, 73%, and 75%, respectively). Freedom from reintervention for types I and III endoleaks were significantly lower than no endoleak cohort (I: 76%; P < .001; III: 72%; P < .001 vs 83%), but freedom from rupture was higher for those with type II and III endoleak (95% and 97% vs 94%; P < .001). Of 14,479 patients with detailed follow-up endoleak data, 2290 (16%) had an endoleak. Compared with those without endoleak, types I and III had significantly lower 5-year survival (I: 80%; P = .002; III: 66%; P < .001 vs 84%), but there were no differences for types II (82%) and indeterminate (77%). Those with any type of follow-up endoleak had lower 5-year freedom from reintervention (I: 70%; P < .001; II: 76%; P = .006; III: 36%; P < .001; indeterminate: 60%; P = .007 vs 84%), and lower freedom from rupture (I: 92%; P < .001; II: 91%; P = .16; III: 88%; P = .01; indeterminate: 90%; P = .11 vs 94%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with patients with no endoleak, those with type I completion endoleaks have lower 5-year survival and freedom from reintervention. Patients with types I and III follow-up endoleaks also have lower survival, and any endoleak at follow-up is associated with lower freedom from reintervention and freedom from rupture. These data highlight the importance of careful patient selection and close postoperative follow-up after EVAR, as the presence of endoleaks, specifically type I and III, over time portends worse outcomes.

Morphological and Clinical Predictors of Early/Follow-up Failure of the Endovascular Infrarenal Abdominal Aneurysm Repair With Currently Available Endografts

PURPOSE

To report outcomes of endovascular repair (EVAR) of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with currently-available endografts and identify predictors of technical/clinical failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing EVAR between 2012 and 2020 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Technical success (TS: no type I-III endoleaks, renal/hypogastric arteries loss, iliac leg occlusion, conversion to open repair and mortality within 24 postoperative hour), proximal neck-related TS (nr-TS: no proximal type I endoleaks, unplanned renal arteries coverage), and 30-day mortality were assessed as early outcomes. Proximal type I endoleak (ELIa), survival and freedom from reinterventions (FFRs) were assessed during follow-up. Uni/multivariate analysis and Cox-regression were used to identified factors associated with early and follow-up outcomes; FFR and survival were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 710 were included. Technical success and nr-TS were 692 (98%) and 700 (99%), respectively. The presence of ≥2 hostile anatomical infrarenal neck characteristics was associated with technical failure (odds ratio [OR]: 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-4.1; p: 0.007). Infrarenal neck angle >90° (OR: 2.88; 95% CI: 9.6-50.3; p: 0.004), barrel shape (OR: 2.33; 95% CI: 11.1-100.3; p: 0.02) or presence of ≥2 hostile anatomical infrarenal neck characteristics (OR: 2.16; 95% CI: 2.5-5.3; p: 0.03) were independent risk factors for neck-related technical failures. Six (0.8%) patients died within 30 postoperative days. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 16; 95% CI: 1.1-218.3; p: 0.04) and urgent repair (OR: 15; 95% CI: 1.8-119.6; p: 0.01) were independent risk factors for 30-day mortality. The mean follow-up was 53±13 months. There were 12 (1.7%) ELIa during follow-up. Infrarenal neck length <15 mm (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.9-9.6; p: 0.005), diameter >28 mm (HR: 2.7; 95% CI: 1.6-9.5; p: 0.006), angle ≥90° (HR: 2.7; 95% CI: 8.3-50.1; p: 0.007), and persistent type II endoleak (HR: 2.9; 95% CI: 1.6-10.1; p: 0.004) were independent risk factors for ELIa. Freedom from reintervention was 91% at 5 years. The ELIa was an independent risk factor for reinterventions during follow-up (HR: 29.5; 95% CI: 1.4-1.6; p<0.001). Survival was 74% at 5 years with 2 cases (0.3%) of late aortic-related mortality. Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (HR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.4-3.65; p: 0.03), aneurysm diameter ≥65 mm (HR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.4-3.26; p<0.001), and infrarenal neck length <15 mm (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.2-2.35; p: 0.04) were independent risk factors for mortality during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular repair with currently-available endografts has high TS and low 30-day mortality. Survival and FFRs were satisfactory at mid-term. Pre/postoperative risk factors for technical and clinical failure were identified and they should be considered in EVAR indication and postoperative management to reduce complications and improve mid-term outcome.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Pre and postoperative risk factors for technical and clinical EVAR failure can be identified and they should be considered in EVAR indication and postoperative management to reduce complications and improve mid-term outcome.

Evolution of open aneurysmorrhaphy for management of sac expansion after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the perioperative and mid-term clinical outcomes of open aneurysmorrhaphy (OA) for the treatment of sac expansion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

OA involves sac exposure without dissection of the proximal or distal neck, sacotomy and ligation of back-bleeding vessels, preservation of the prior stent graft, and tight closure of the sac around the stent graft. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had undergone OA for nonruptured sac expansion after standard EVAR at our institution between January 2015 and June 2021. The primary end points were 30-day mortality and aneurysm-related death. The secondary end points were postoperative complications, overall survival, freedom from reintervention, and sac regrowth rate.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients had undergone OA. Their mean age was 76.9 ± 6.7 years. The median sac diameter at OA was 79 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 76-92 mm). The median duration from the index EVAR to OA was 82 months (IQR, 72-104 months). Preoperative computed tomography angiography confirmed a type II endoleak (EL) in 20 patients, 1 of whom had had a coexisting type Ia EL; a type IIIb EL was identified in 1 patient. Concomitant endovascular procedures had been performed in six patients to treat a type I or III EL or reinforce the proximal and distal seals. The OA technique has been modified since 2017, with the addition of more aggressive dissection of the sac and complete removal of the mural thrombus to further decrease the sac diameter. Postoperative complications occurred in two patients and included abdominal lymphorrhea and failed hemostasis of the common femoral artery requiring surgical repair in one patient each. The 30-day mortality was 0%. During the median follow-up of 36 months (IQR, 14-51 months), the overall survival was 92.7% and 86.9% at 12 and 36 months, respectively, without any aneurysm-related death. In the late (2017-2021) treatment group, the median sac diameter immediately after OA was smaller than that in the early (2015-2016) treatment group (early group: median, 50 mm; IQR, 39-57 mm; vs later group: median, 41 mm; IQR, 32-47 mm; P = .083). Furthermore, in the late group, the sac regrowth rate was lower (early group: median, 0.36 mm/mo; IQR, 0.23-0.83 mm/mo; vs late group: median, 0 mm/mo; IQR, 0-0.11 mm/mo; P = .0075) and the freedom from reintervention rate was higher (late group: 94.7% at both 12 and 36 months, respectively; early group: 71.4% and 53.6% at 12 and 36 months, respectively; log-rank P = .070).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results have shown that OA for the management of post-EVAR sac expansion is feasible with acceptable mid-term outcomes. Aggressive dissection and tight plication of the sac might be imperative for better mid-term outcomes after OA.

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.

Nationwide Analysis of Persistent Type II Endoleak and Late Outcomes of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Japan: a Propensity-matched Analysis

We reviewed the results of endovascular aneurysm repair in patients from the Japanese Committee for Stentgraft Management registry to determine the significance of persistent type II endoleak (p-T2EL) and the risk of late adverse events, including aneurysm sac enlargement.

Prophylactic Sac Outflow Vessel Embolization is Associated with Improved Sac Regression in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Type II endoleaks (T2E), commonly identified after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), have been associated with late endograft failure and secondary rupture. Number and size of patent aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels, namely the inferior mesenteric, lumbar, and accessory renal arteries, have been implicated as known risk factors for persistent T2E. Given technical challenges associated with post-EVAR embolization, prophylactic embolization of aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels has been advocated to prevent T2E; however, current evidence is limited. We sought to examine the effect of concomitant prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels embolization in patients undergoing EVAR.

METHODS

Patients 18 and older in the SVS Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent elective EVAR for intact aneurysms between January 2009 and November 2020 were included. Patients with history of prior aortic repair and those without available follow-up data were excluded. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed by group: EVAR with or without prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization (emboEVAR). Outcomes of interest were rates of in-hospital postoperative complications, incidence of aneurysmal sac regression (≥5mm) and T2E, and rates of re-intervention in follow-up.

RESULTS

15060 patients were included: 272 had emboEVAR and 14788 had EVAR alone. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of age, comorbidities, or anatomic characteristics including mean maximum preoperative aortic diameter (5.5 vs. 5.6 cm, p=0.48). emboEVAR was associated with significantly longer procedural times (148 vs. 124 minutes, p<0.0001), prolonged fluoroscopy (32 vs. 23 minutes, p<0.0001), increased contrast use (105 vs. 91 mL, p<0.0001), without significant reduction in T2E at case completion (17.7% vs. 16.3%, p=0.54). Incidence of postoperative complications (3.7% vs. 4.6%, p=0.56), index hospitalization reintervention rates (0.7% vs. 1.3%, p=0.59), length of stay (1.8 vs. 2 days, p=0.75), and thirty-day mortality (0% vs. 0%, p=1) were similar between groups. In mid-term follow-up (14.6±6.2 months), the emboEVAR group had a significantly greater mean reduction in maximum aortic diameter (0.69 vs. 0.54 cm, p=0.006) with a higher proportion experiencing sac regression ≥5 mm (53.5% vs. 48.7%). Re-intervention rates were similar between groups. On multivariable analysis, prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessel embolization (OR 1.34, CI 1.04-1.74, p=0.024) was a significant independent predictor of sac regression.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization can be performed safely for patients with intact aortic aneurysms undergoing elective EVAR without significant associated perioperative morbidity or mortality. emboEVAR is associated with significant sac regression compared to EVAR alone in mid-term follow-up. Although there was not a decrease in the incidence of T2E, this technique shows promise and future efforts should focus on identifying a subset of aneurysm and outflow branch characteristics that will benefit from concomitant selective versus complete prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization.