Successful laparoscopic repair of refractory type Ia endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study of Fenestrated and Branched Endografts After Failed Endovascular Infrarenal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Type Ia Endoleak

OBJECTIVE

Failed endovascular infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) due to development of late type Ia endoleak exposes patients to the risk of rupture and should be treated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) for treatment of failed EVAR with type Ia endoleak.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2019, a prospective multicentre study was conducted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04532450) that included 85 consecutive patients who had undergone F/BEVAR to treat a type Ia endoleak following EVAR. The primary outcome was overall freedom from any re-intervention or death related to the F/BEVAR procedure.

RESULTS

In 30 cases (35%) EVAR was associated with a short < 10 mm or angulated (> 60°) infrarenal aortic neck, poor placement of the initial stent graft (n = 3, 4%), sizing error (n = 2, 2%), and/or stent graft migration (n = 7, 8%). Type Ia endoleak was observed after a period of 59 ± 25 months following EVAR. The authors performed 82 FEVAR (96%) and three BEVAR (4%) procedures with revascularisation of 305 target arteries. Overall technical success was 94%, with three failures including one persistent Type Ia endoleak and two unsuccessful stent graft implantations. Intra-operative target artery revascularisation was successful in 303 of 305 attempts. The in hospital mortality rate was 5%. Cardiac, renal and pulmonary complications occurred in 6%, 14%, and 7% of patients, respectively. Post-operative spinal cord ischaemia occurred in four patients (4.7%). At three years, the survival rate was 64% with overall freedom from any re-intervention or aneurysm related death of 40%, and freedom from specific F/BEVAR re-intervention of 73%. At three years, the secondary patency rate of the target visceral arteries was 96%. During follow up, 27 patients (33%) required a revision procedure of the fenestrated (n = 11) or index EVAR stent graft (n = 16), including six open conversions.

CONCLUSION

While manufactured F/BEVAR was effective in treating type Ia endoleak in patients with failed EVAR, it was at the cost of a number of secondary endovascular and open surgical procedures.

Hybrid Approach with Angiography and Limited Open Exposure to Treat Type Ia Endoleaks after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Type Ia endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) almost always mandate secondary percutaneous reinterventions. Several patients, however, will require conversion to open surgical repair with complete graft explant, which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We herein present 3 cases of hybrid surgical repair for type Ia endoleaks, using a limited open exposure for proximal stent graft edge revision to achieve graft preservation and effective aneurysm sac exclusion.

METHODS

Angiography was used to confirm type Ia endoleak in 3 patients (2 males) who had previous EVAR between October 2017 and October 2019. Time to the endoleak after the index EVAR was immediate in 1 patient during repair of a ruptured aneurysm, 2 months in 1 patient and 2 years in 1 patient. The aorta was exposed through a limited transabdominal (n = 1) or retroperitoneal (n = 2) approach and circumferential aortic control was achieved below the renal arteries. A row of interrupted horizontal mattress sutures of 3-0 polypropylene reinforced with Teflon pledgets was placed along the aortic neck circumference. Multi-planar angiography was then repeated to verify the absence of sac filling and successful type Ia endoleak exclusion. Follow-up abdominal duplex was obtained for all 3 patients after discharge to monitor the stent graft and confirm endoleak resolution. Furthermore, there were no instances of acute renal failure.

RESULTS

In the period of review, 77 patients underwent EVAR. In the 3 patients described, we were able to achieve complete aneurysm sac exclusion and stent graft preservation in all cases. Follow-up imaging was available on 2 patients at 4-6 weeks after surgery demonstrating sustained exclusion of the endoleak. Two patients died during follow-up: one from a myocardial infarction 7 weeks after surgery and one from metastatic lung cancer at 8 months after surgery. Follow up duplex imaging at one year on the single survivor demonstrated sac shrinkage and absence of endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

Type Ia endoleaks represent a significant source of morbidity and mortality after EVAR and typically require repair to avoid aneurysm rupture. Our use of limited proximal revision without explant provides an alternative approach to resolve the endoleaks while reducing the magnitude of physiological stress when compared to an open explant. It represents a feasible option for high-risk patients.

Outcomes of endovascular treatment of endoleak type Ia after EVAR: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular repair of infra-renal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) has become treatment of choice. However, individuals undergoing EVAR have a high re-intervention rate. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current endovascular treatment modalities of endoleak type Ia (ET Ia) treatment after EVAR and their outcome.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched with PRISMA methodology for studies reporting on endovascular treatment of ET Ia after EVAR. Studies presenting treatment of intra-operative ET Ia were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Two international registries, fourteen non-randomized retrospective and twelve case-report studies were included reporting on 356 patients. Reported endovascular techniques included fenestrated-, branched-, chimney EVAR, endovascular sealing (EVAS), endoanchors, embolization techniques, cuff and/or "giant" Palmaz stents. Technical success rate ranged from 90% to 100%, with intra-operative mortality rate of 0%. During early period, persistence of ET Ia was 3.4% (9/262) and the re-intervention rate was 3.5% (8/227). The 30-day mortality rate was 2% (7/356). Mean follow-up was 22.4 months±18. Presence of ET Ia was 5.9% (21/356), and the reintervention rate was 5.1% (18/349). The mortality rate was 13% (26/203), while the primary patency rate of TVs ranged from 94.3% to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

A multitude of techniques for endovascular repair for ET Ia exists. No strong evidence supports one specific technique. The early and mid-term outcomes are encouraging in terms of ET Ia resolution, mortality and morbidity rates.

Banding for type IA endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic repair: An underexposed treatment option

More challenging abdominal aortic aneurysms with unfavorable proximal aortic neck anatomy are treated with endovascular means. As a consequence, proximal inadequate sealing may result in type IA endoleak, which in turn can lead to abdominal aortic aneurysm progression or rupture. The presence of type IA endoleak is an indication for secondary interventions. External aortic banding can be a good option to solve a type IA endoleak, but is underreported in literature; we present two cases and review literature.