Type II endoleak prevention with coil embolization during endovascular aneurysm repair in high-risk patients

Aortic aneurysm sac filling with AneuFix injectable polymer during endovascular aneurysm repair: feasibility and safety trial study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Type II endoleaks (T2ELs) following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) can lead to aneurysm growth, compromising the stent graft seal and risking rupture. Preventing these endoleaks during EVAR involves filling the AAA sac around the stent graft to exclude the aneurysm and block any arteries causing the endoleak. This study investigates the feasibility and safety of using AneuFix, a biocompatible injectable polymer developed by TripleMed (Geleen, the Netherlands), for aneurysmal sac filling during EVAR in high-risk T2EL patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A feasibility, single-arm, single-centre clinical trial will initially include five patients with infrarenal AAA, eligible for EVAR, and at high risk for T2EL based on the number of patent lumbar arteries and the cross-sectional area of the aortic lumen at the level of the inferior mesenteric artery. Postevaluation by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board, the study cohort will extend to 25 patients. During EVAR and after stent graft deployment, the aneurysm sac is filled with AneuFix polymer using a filling sheath positioned parallel to the contralateral limb with the tip inside the aneurysm sac. Primary outcome is technical success (successful AAA sac filling). The secondary outcomes include clinical success at 6 and 12 months (occurrence of T2ELs and AAA growth assessed with CT angiography), intraoperative and perioperative complications, all endoleaks, adverse events, re-interventions, aneurysm rupture and patient survival.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was approved by the Dutch Authorities (Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, IGJ), Amsterdam University Medical Centre Ethical Commission, and adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki and European Medical Device Regulation. Results will be shared at (inter)national conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04307992.

A procedural step analysis of radiation exposure in fenestrated endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Radiation exposure during complex endovascular aortic repair may be associated with tangible adverse effects in patients and operators. This study aimed to identify the steps of highest radiation exposure during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) and to investigate potential intraoperative factors affecting radiation exposure.

METHODS

Prospective data of 31 consecutive patients managed exclusively with four-fenestration endografts between March 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Leveraging the conformity of the applied technique, every FEVAR operation was considered a combination of six overall stages composed of 28 standardized steps. Intraoperative parameters, including air kerma, dose area product, fluoroscopy time, and number of digital subtraction angiographies (DSAs) and average angulations were collected and analyzed for each step.

RESULTS

The mean procedure duration and fluoroscopy time was 140 minutes (standard deviation [SD], 32 minutes), and 40 minutes (SD, 9.1 minutes), respectively. The mean air kerma was 814 mGy (SD, 498 mGy), and the mean dose area product was 66.8 Gy cm2 (SD, 33 Gy cm2). The percentage of air kerma of the entire procedure was distributed throughout the following procedure stages: preparation (13.9%), main body (9.6%), target vessel cannulation (27.8%), stent deployment (29.1%), distal aortoiliac grafting (14.3%), and completion (5.3%). DSAs represented 23.0% of the total air kerma. Target vessel cannulation and stent deployment presented the highest mean lateral angulation (67 and 63 degrees, respectively). Using linear regression, each minute of continuous fluoroscopy added 18.9 mGy of air kerma (95% confidence interval, 17.6-20.2 mGy), and each DSA series added 21.1 mGy of air kerma (95% confidence interval, 17.9-24.3 mGy). Body mass index and lateral angulation were significantly associated with increased air kerma (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cannulation of target vessels and bridging stent deployment are the steps requiring the highest radiation exposure during FEVAR cases. Optimized operator protection during these steps is mandatory.

Surgical Treatment for Sac Expansion Caused by Type II Endoleaks after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms/Iliac Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to examine the outcomes of open surgery techniques involving sacotomy and suturing of the feeding vessels in patients with aneurysm sac expansion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

Fourteen consecutive patients treated with sacotomy and suturing of feeding vessels for expanding aneurysm sacs with type II endoleaks following EVAR, between January 2018 and December 2022, were retrospectively included. All patients underwent preoperative digital subtraction angiography, and attempts were made to embolize the thick feeding vessels to reduce intraoperative bleeding. Age, sex, comorbidities, clinical presentation, aneurysm sac increase, morbidity, mortality, and follow-up were recorded.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 72.89 ± 5.13 years old, and 13 (92.9%) patients were male. The sac size at the time of the open procedure was 107.89 ± 22.58 mm, and the extent of sac growth at the time of the open procedure was 37.50 ± 18.29 mm. The initial technical success rate of laparotomy and open ligation of the culprit arteries causing type II endoleaks was 92.9% (13/14). Among the patients, 5 (35.7%) had been treated with interventional embolization before the open procedure. One endograft was removed and replaced by a bifurcated Dacron graft because of distal dislocation in one patient. All patients recovered, and no deaths were recorded postoperatively. No patients had an eventful postoperative course or any subsequent graft-related complications during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Open surgical repair involving sacotomy and suturing of the feeding vessels appeared to have good outcomes in the treatment of patients with aneurysm sac expansion caused by type II endoleaks after EVAR. Preoperative embolization of feeding vessels can thus effectively reduce intraoperative bleeding.

Efficacy of Sac Coil Embolization in Endovascular Aortic Repair for Sac Shrinkage in Patients at a High Risk of Type II Endoleak from Lumbar Arteries

BACKGROUND

In endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), preemptive embolization of sac branch vessels is effective in preventing postoperative type II endoleak (T2EL). However, this technique has not been widely adopted especially for lumbar arteries (LAs) because of technical difficulties and time constraints. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of nonselective sac coil embolization, which is a simpler surgical method, in postoperative sac shrinkage for patients at a high risk of T2EL from LAs.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed 76 patients who underwent elective EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm with 4 or more patent LAs or at least 1 patent LA of ≥2 mm at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2022. The patients who underwent sac coil embolization were included in Group Ⅰ (n = 20), and the others were divided into 2 groups: those with an inferior mesenteric artery that was originally occluded or embolized by coils or stent graft bodies (Group Ⅱ, n = 21), and those without that (Group Ⅲ, n = 35). In Group Ⅰ, 0.035-inch coils were inserted into the sac after complete stent graft deployment. The cumulative incidence of sac shrinkage (≥5 mm) was compared between the groups. Further, univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to determine the predictors of sac shrinkage.

RESULTS

Sac shrinkage (≥5 mm) was observed more frequently in Group Ⅰ (50%) than in Group Ⅱ (19%) and Group Ⅲ (17%) (P = 0.052 and 0.043, respectively). The cumulative incidence of sac shrinkage was significantly higher in Group Ⅰ than in Group Ⅱ (log-rank P = 0.039) and Group Ⅲ (log-rank P = 0.024). Multivariable Cox regression analyses revealed that sac embolization was a significant predictor of sac shrinkage (hazard ratio, 4.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-10.8; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonselective sac coil embolization in EVAR is potentially effective for sac shrinkage in the early postoperative phase in patients at high risk of T2EL from LAs. This simple procedure may improve prognosis after EVAR.

Feasibility of aortic aneurysm sac embolization using a novel shape memory polymer embolic device

BACKGROUND

We investigated the feasibility of aneurysm sac embolization using a novel self-expanding porous shape memory polymer (SMP) device during endovascular aortic abdominal or thoracic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients treated at 2 centers in Germany. Patients were treated from January 2019 to July 2021 with follow-up at 7 days and 3, 6, and 12 months. Aneurysm sacs were implanted with SMP devices immediately following endograft placement during the same procedure. Primary endpoint was technically successful SMP-device deployment into the aneurysm sac outside the endograft. Secondary endpoints were changes in aneurysm volume and associated complications (e.g., endoleaks).

RESULTS

We included 18 patients (16 males), aged 72 ± 9 years, achieving 100% technical success. Mean preprocedure aortic aneurysm sac volume was 195 ± 117 mL with a perfused aneurysm volume of 97 ± 60 mL. A mean of 24 ± 12 SMP devices per patient were used (range 5-45, corresponding to 6.25-56.25 mL expanded embolic material volume). All evaluable patients exhibited sac regression except 2 patients yet to reach 3-month follow-up. At mean 11 ± 7 months (range 3-24), change in aneurysm volume from baseline was -30 ± 21 mL (p < 0.001). In 8 patients, aneurysm regression was observed despite type 2 endoleaks in 6 and type 1A endoleaks in 2, none of them requiring further intervention to date. No morbidity or mortality related to this treatment occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

SMP devices for aortic aneurysm sac embolization during endovascular repair appear feasible and safe in this small case series. Prospective studies are needed.

KEY POINTS

• Shape memory polymer is a novel, self-expanding, porous, and radiolucent embolic device material. • Aortic aneurysm sacs were treated with polymer devices immediately following endograft placement. • Aortic aneurysm sac regression was observed in all patients with over 3-month follow-up. • Aortic aneurysm sac regression was observed even in the presence of endoleaks.

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.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of pre-emptive embolization of the aneurysm sac side branches and aneurysm sac coil embolization to improve the outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair

Objective

Previous reports have revealed a high incidence of type II endoleak (T2EL) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The incidence of T2EL after EVAR is reduced by pre-emptive embolization of aneurysm sac side branches (ASSB) and aneurysm sac coil embolization (ASCE). This study aimed to investigate whether different preventive interventions for T2EL were correlated with suppression of aneurysm sac expansion and reduction of the re-intervention rate.

Methods

The PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE and Embase databases, and conference proceedings were searched to identify articles on EVAR with or without embolization. The study was developed in line with the Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, and Study design principles and was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We used network meta-analysis based on multivariate random-effects meta-analysis to indirectly compare outcomes of different strategies for embolization during EVAR.

Results

A total of 31 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. The included studies were published between 2001 and 2022 and analyzed a total of 18,542 patients, including 1,882 patients who received prophylactic embolization treatment during EVAR (experimental group) and 16,660 who did not receive prophylactic embolization during EVAR (control group). The effect of pre-emptive embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) (IMA-ASSB) in preventing T2EL was similar (relative risk [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38–2.63) to the effects of non-selective embolization of ASSB (NS-ASSB) and ASCE (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.40–1.96). IMA-ASSB showed a better clinical effect in suppressing the aneurysm sac expansion (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09–2.25 compared with NS-ASSB; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.16–5.56 compared with ASCE) and reducing the re-intervention rate (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08–1.53 compared with NS-ASSB; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19–2.22 compared with ASCE). All prophylactic embolization strategies improved the clinical outcomes of EVAR.

Conclusion

Prophylactic embolization during EVAR effectively prevents T2EL, suppresses the aneurysm sac expansion, and reduces the re-intervention rate. IMA embolization demonstrated benefits in achieving long-term aneurysm sac stability and lowering the risk of secondary surgery. NS-ASSB more effectively reduces the incidence of T2EL, while IMA embolization alone or in combination with ASCE enhances the clinical benefits of EVAR. In addition, as network meta-analysis is still an indirect method based on a refinement of existing data, more studies and evidence are still needed in the future to establish more credible conclusions.

[Endoleaks in endovacular treatment of infrareneral abdominal aortic aneurysm (part I)]

We analyzed the PubMed, Scopus databases and the eLIBRARY electronic library regarding appropriate literature data. In the first part, modern classifications of endoleaks type 1 and 2 after stenting of infrarenal aortic aneurysm are considered. We described causes, risk factors and effectiveness of various treatment options.

[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.

Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Prevention of type 2 Endoleak by Intraoperative Aortic Side Branch Coil Embolization

OBJECTIVE

The midterm results of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with aortic side branch coil embolization during EVAR was evaluated.

METHODS

Our center began coil embolization for all patent inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and lumbar artery (LA) with an inner diameter more than 2.0 mm during EVAR since June 2015. When four or more LA were patent, coil embolization for LA with inner diameter 2.0 mm or less was done. EVAR without aortic side branches coil embolization was performed for 59 patients prior to June 2015 (control group) and 79 patients underwent EVAR with coil embolization during EVAR (coil group). The success rate of coil embolization for IMA and LA was evaluated in coil group. The frequency of type 2 endoleak (T2EL), freedom from aneurysm sac expansion (5 mm or more) rate and the rate of the aneurysm sac shrinkage (10 mm or more) were compared between the coil and control groups. Additionally, multiple logistic regression analysis for all patients was conducted to analyze whether IMA patency and the number of patent lumbar artery at the end of EVAR were the risk factors of the aneurysm sac expansion of 5 mm or more.

RESULTS

The success rate of IMA coil embolization was 96.4% and that of LA was 74.5%. Compared to the control group, the frequency of T2EL was significantly lower in coil group at 7 days (1.3% vs. 60.4%, P <0.0001) and at 6 months (2.1% vs 38.2%, P <0.0001) after EVAR. The freedom from aneurysm sac expansion rate was significantly better in the coil group at 5 years (100% in coil group and 65.2% in control group, P = 0.002). The rate of aneurysm sac shrinkage was significantly better in coil group (15.5% vs. 2.0% at 1 year, 42.8% vs. 6.3% at 2 years and 53.4% vs. 17.8% at 3 years, p = 0.0007). The risk of aneurysm sac expansion of 5 mm or more was estimated to be 11 times greater when the IMA was patent, and 4.9 times greater when 3 or more LAs were patent at the end of EVAR.

CONCLUSION

When IMA was occluded and the number of patent LA became 2 or less by aortic side branch coil embolization during EVAR, favorable mid-term results were safely obtained and good long-term result could be expected with EVAR.

First-in-Human Clinical Application of the Medyria TrackCath System in Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms (ACCESS Trial): A Prospective Multicenter Single-Arm Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The Medyria TrackCath Catheter (MedTCC) is an innovative, thermal convection-based blood flow velocity (BFV) tracking catheter that may be used during complex aortic endovascular procedures for identification and catheterization of target orifices. The ACCESS Trial analyzes the safety and performance of the MedTCC for targeted vessel catheterization to generally evaluate the feasibility of thermal convection-based BFV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a first-in-human, proof-of-concept, prospective single-arm multicenter clinical trial between March 2018 and February 2019 in patients who underwent endovascular aortic procedures at 4 high-volume centers. During these procedures, the MedTCC was advanced over a guidewire through the femoral access. The D-shape was enfolded in the reno-visceral part of the aorta and target orifices were identified and catheterized with a guidewire via the side port of the MedTCC through BFV tracking. BFV measurements were performed at baseline (Baseline-BFV), alignment to the orifice (Orifice-BFV), and following catheterization (Confirmation-BFV) to prove correct identification and catheterization of target orifices. The procedural success rate, the catheterization success rate, procedure-related parameters, and (serious) adverse events ((S)AE) during the follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were included in the safety group (SG) and 26 in the performance group (PG). The procedural success rate was 89% (PG), the MedTCC catheterization success rate was 98% (PG). The MedTCC reliably measured BFV changes indicated by significant differences in BFV between Baseline-BFV and Orifice-BFV (p<0.05). Median (interquartile range; IQR) fluoroscopy time per orifice was 5.0 (1.5-8.5) minutes [total surgery 49 (26-74) minutes], median (IQR) contrast agent used per orifice was 1.0 (0-5.0) mL [total surgery 80 (40-100) mL], and median (IQR) MedTCC-based procedural time was 3.0 (2.0-6.0) minutes. There was no device-related SAE.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCESS Trial suggests that BFV measurement allows for reliable target orifice identification and catheterization. The use of MedTCC is safe and generates short fluoroscopy time and low contrast agent use, which in turn might facilitate complex endovascular procedures.

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.

Outcomes of Preventive Embolization of the Inferior Mesenteric Artery during Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of preemptive inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) embolization on outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2015 to July 2017, all patients undergoing elective EVAR or fenestrated EVAR (F-EVAR) for asymptomatic AAA in a single tertiary hospital were retrospectively included. Three groups of patients were defined: patients with a patent IMA who underwent embolization during EVAR/F-EVAR (group 1), those with a patent IMA who did not undergo embolization during EVAR/F-EVAR (group 2), and those with a chronically occluded IMA (group 3). Preoperative aortic morphology, demographics, and procedural details were recorded. Aneurysmal growth (≥5 mm), reintervention, and overall mortality rates were analyzed using multivariate proportional hazard multivariate modeling. Propensity scores were constructed, and inverse probability weighting was applied to a new set of multivariate analyses to perform a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 266 patients (male, 95% [n = 249]) with a median age of 70 (65-77) years were included, with F-EVAR procedures comprising 87 (32.7%) of the interventions. There were 52, 142, and 72 patients in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Changes in aneurysmal sac size did not differ between groups, nor did overall survival or reintervention rates at 24 months. IMA embolization was not identified as an independently protective factor for aneurysmal growth during follow-up (relative risk [RR] = 2.82/mm [0.96-8.28], P = .060), whereas accessory renal arteries (RR = 5.07/mm [1.72-14.96], P = .003) and a larger preoperative aneurysmal diameter (RR = 1.09/mm [1.03-1.15], P = .004) were independent risk factors for sac enlargement.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive embolization of the IMA during EVAR or F-EVAR did not promote aneurysmal sac shrinking or decrease the reintervention rate at 2-year follow-up.

Tailored Sac Embolization During EVAR for Preventing Persistent Type II Endoleak

BACKGROUND

Persistent type II endoleaks (ELIIp) occur in 8-23% of patients submitted to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and may lead to aneurysm progression and rupture. Intraoperative embolization of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac is effective to prevent their occurrence, however a method to achieve complete sac thrombosis has not been standardized yet. Aim of our study was to identify factors associated with prevention of ELIIp after intraoperative embolization, in order to optimize technical details.

METHODS

Patients at high risk for ELIIp, who underwent EVAR with AAA - sac coil embolization were prospectively collected into a dedicated database from January 2012 to March 2015. The endoluminal residual sac volume (ERV), not occupied by the endograft [ERV= AAA total volume (TV) - (AAA-thrombus volume (THV) + endograft volume (EgV)] was calculated on preoperative computed tomography and the concentration of coils implanted (CCoil= n coils implanted/ERV) for each patient was evaluated. AAA volumetric evaluation was conducted by dedicated vessels analysis software (3Mensio). ELIIp presence was evaluated by contrast-enhanced ultrasound at 6 and 12-month. Patients with ELIIp at 12 months (Group 1) were clustered and compared to patients without ELIIp (Group 2), in order to evaluate the incidence of ELIIp in patients undergone to preventive AAA-sac embolization, and identify the predictors of ELIIp prevention. Morphological potential risk factors for ELIIp such as TV, THV, VR% and EgV were also considered in all patients. Statistical correlation was assessed by Fisher Exact Test.

RESULTS

Among 326 patients undergone to standard EVAR, 61 (19% - M: 96.7%, median age: 72 [IQR: 8] years, median AAA diameter: 57 [IQR: 7] mm) were considered at high risk for ELIIp and were submitted to coil embolization. The median AAA total volume (TV) and median ERV were 156 (IQR: 59) cc and 46 (IQR: 26) cc, respectively. The median number and concentration of coils (IMWCE-38-16-45 Cook M-Ray) positioned in AAA-sac were 5 (IQR: 1) coils and 0.17 coil/cm³ (range 0.02-1.20). Among this high-risk population, the incidence of ELIIp was 29.5% and 23% at 6 and 12-month, respectively. Fourteen patients (23%) were clustered in Group1 and 47 (77%) in Group 2. Both groups were homogeneous for clinical characteristics and preoperative morphological risk factors. There were no differences in the preoperative median TV, AAA-thrombus volume (THV), %VR, EgV and number of implanted coils between Group1 and Group2. Patients in Group1 had a significantly higher ERV (59 [IQR: 13] cm³ vs. 42 [IQR: 27] cm³, P = 0.002) and lower CCoil (0.09 [IQR: 0.03] vs. 0.18 [IQR: 0.21], P = 0.006) than patients of Group2. ELIIp was significantly related to the presence of ERV > 49 cm³ (86 % vs. 42 %, Group1 and Group2 respectively, P = 0.006) and CCoil < 0.17coil/ cm³ (100% vs. 68%, Group1 e Group2 respectively, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

According with our results, Coil concentration and endoluminal residual volume can affect the efficacy of the AAA - sac embolization in the prevention of ELIIp, moreover CCoil ≥0.17coil/ cm³ maight be considered to determine the tailored number of coils.

Prospective, Randomised Two Centre Trial of Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm With or Without Sac Embolisation

OBJECTIVE

The benefit of aneurysm sac coil embolisation (ASCE) during endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains unclear. This prospective randomised two centre study (SCOPE 1: Sac COil embolisation for Prevention of Endoleak) compared the outcomes of standard EVAR in patients with AAA at high risk of type II endoleak (EL with EVAR with ASCE during the period 2014-2019.

METHODS

Patients at high risk of type II EL were randomised to standard EVAR (group A) or EVAR with coil ASCE (group B). The primary endpoint was the rate of all types of EL during follow up. Secondary endpoints included freedom from type II EL related re-interventions, and aneurysm sac diameter and volume variation at two year follow up. Adverse events included type II EL and re-interventions. CTA and Duplex ultrasound scans were scheduled at 30 days, six months, one year, and two years after surgery.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were enrolled, 47 in each group. There were no intra-operative complications. At M1, 16/47 early type II EL occurred (34%) in group A vs. 2/47 (4.3%) in group B (p < .001). At M6, 15/36 type II EL (41.7%) occurred in group A vs. 2/39 (4.26%) in group B (p < .001). At M12, 15/37 type II El (40.5%) occurred in group A vs. 5/35 (14.3%) in group B (p = .018). At 24 months, 8/32 type 2 El (25%) occurred in group A vs. 3/29 (6.5%) in group B (p = .19). Kaplan-Meier curves of survival free from EL and re-interventions were significantly in favour of group B (p < .001). Aneurysm sac volume decreased significantly in group B compared with group A at M6 (p = .081), at M12 (p = .004), and M24 (p = .001).

CONCLUSION

For selected patients at risk of EL, ASCE seems effective in preventing EL at one, six, and at 12 months. However, the difference was not statistically significant at 24 months. ASCE decreases the re-intervention rate two years after EVAR. A significantly faster aneurysm volume shrinkage was observed at one and two years following surgery. (SCOPE 1 trial: NCT01878240).

Transgraft embolization by using long needle for the treatment of type II endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic repair

We used a long custom needle (LCN) to improve transgraft embolization (TGE) in 10 reported cases that underwent TGE with LCN for type II endoleak (T2E) treatment after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. TGE was performed with a LCN enabling the usage of microcatheter and embolization coils in 10 cases with T2E after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Embolization was successfully achieved in the nidus in all 10 cases. The aneurysmal sac diameter significantly decreased by TGE, and none of the 7 of 10 cases exhibited recurrence of sac expansion or T2E throughout the 2-year follow-up period.

The Effect of Transfusion of Two Units of Fresh Frozen Plasma on the Perioperative Fibrinogen Levels and the Outcome of Patients Undergoing Elective Endovascular Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate whether the transfusion of 2 units of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) immediately post aneurysm exclusion has any effect on the perioperative fibrinogen levels and the outcome of patients undergoing elective endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

METHODS

Consecutive infrarenal AAA patients undergoing elective EVAR with the bifurcated Endurant-II stent-graft (Medtronic) were recruited from 2 vascular units. The first unit has a routine policy of administering 2 units of FFP immediately upon aneurysm exclusion (FFP group), whereas the second unit has no such policy (control group). Serum fibrinogen levels were measured on admission and 24 hr post-EVAR and the perioperative change in fibrinogen (Δfib) was calculated (24-hr postoperative minus preoperative fibrinogen). The 2 groups were compared with regards to the perioperative fibrinogen levels (preoperative, 24-hr postoperative, and Δfib) and the outcome (endoleaks, reinterventions, major adverse cardiovascular events, death) during follow up.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients (41 in the FFP group, 29 controls) were examined. There were 68 men, the mean age was 70 ± 7 years and the maximum AAA diameter was 63.3 ± 13.8 mm. During the follow up (34 ± 19 months), a total of 6 endoleaks were recorded (2 type Ia, 2 type Ib and 1 type II). Mean preoperative fibrinogen, 24-hr postoperative fibrinogen and Δfib was 391.1 ± 92.8 mg/dL, 367.7 ± 97.8 mg/dL and -23.5 ± 51.02 mg/dL, respectively. There was a trend for the fibrinogen to fall 24 hr postprocedure, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). There was a weak negative association between Δfib and endoleaks (P = 0.007, r = -0.29). Compared to controls, the FFP group had a higher 24-hr postoperative fibrinogen (401.8 ± 112.9 mg/dL vs. 319.3 ± 34.9 mg/dL, P < 0.0001) and a lower Δfib (-3.00 ± 56.01 mg/dL vs. -52.48 ± 21.15 mg/dL, P < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups with regards to endoleaks, reinterventions, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfusion of 2 units of FFP postaneurysm exclusion prevents a significant drop in plasma fibrinogen 24 hr post-EVAR, but the impact on clinical outcome has yet to be defined.

Feasibility and Safety of Sac Embolization Using N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate in Emergency Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms or Isolated Iliac Artery Aneurysms

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of sac embolization with N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) in emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and iliac artery aneurysm (IAA) in comparison to EVAR without sac embolization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2012 and December 2019, among 44 consecutive patients with ruptured AAA or IAA, 29 underwent EVAR. Of these, 22 patients (median age 77.5 years; 18 men) had concomitant sac embolization using NBCA; the remaining 7 patients (median age 88 years; 6 men) underwent EVAR without sac embolization and form the control group. The technical success, clinical success (hemodynamic stabilization), procedure-related complications, and mortality were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

All EVAR procedures and embolizations were successful. The clinical success rates in the NBCA and control groups were 95% (21/22) and 71% (5/7), respectively (p=0.14). There was no complication related to the procedure. Type II endoleak occurred in 4 of 21 patients (19%) in the NBCA group vs none of the control patients. One patient (5%) died in the NBCA group vs 3 (43%) in the controls (p=0.034).

CONCLUSION

Sac embolization using NBCA in emergency EVAR appears to be feasible and safe for ruptured AAA and IAA.

Outcomes of Onyx® Embolization of Type II Endoleaks After Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Type II endoleaks (T2ELs) are common following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). Embolization with ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx) may present an effective treatment alternative for T2ELs. Due to limited data supporting its use, we sought to analyze outcomes of Onyx embolization for T2ELs.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients treated for T2ELs utilizing Onyx embolization agent from 2009-2018. All pre- and post-Onyx intervention CT scans were analyzed for diameter and volume changes with 3D reconstruction software. The primary outcomes were change in maximum AAA diameter and volume. Secondary outcomes included additional interventions, rupture, and mortality. A subset analysis was performed with patients with isolated T2ELs (no other types of endoleaks present).

RESULTS

We identified 85 patients (73 males, mean age 77.6 ± 7.6 years) who underwent 112 Onyx interventions. Average time to first Onyx intervention after index EVAR was 3.3 ± 2.6 years and average sac growth was 6.3 ± 6.7 mm. Patients underwent mean 1.3 Onyx interventions using a mean of 4.9 ± 4.7 ml for treatment. Three complications occurred (Onyx extravasation, colon ischemia, and access site hematoma). Mean follow-up was 2.5 ± 2.1 years after initial Onyx treatment. At the most recent follow-up, sac diameter stabilization was seen in 47% and reduction >5 mm was seen in 19%. Sac growth of >5 mm was seen in 34% of patients following the first Onyx intervention. In our subset of isolated T2EL, 72% had sac stabilization or reduction >5 mm. Four patients experienced a ruptured aneurysm (3 had active type 1 endoleaks). Rupture-free survival was 95% at 5 years, and overall survival was 54% at 5 years. Notably, increasing Onyx interventions were not associated with sac stabilization or reduction (OR 0.6, P = 0.1). On multivariable analysis, AAA sac diameter stabilization or reduction was independently associated with BMI >30 kg/m² (OR 4.2, P = 0.01) and having only 1 Onyx intervention (OR 3.8, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Onyx for embolization of T2ELs resulted in AAA sac diameter stabilization or reduction in 66% of patients, and up to 72% in isolated T2ELs. Further, increasing Onyx interventions were not associated with either aneurysm sac stabilization or reduction. Given its similar outcomes to other embolization strategies in the literature, Onyx embolization for management of T2ELs needs to be judiciously considered, particularly for T2ELs persisting after an initial Onyx embolization intervention.

Aneurysm Sac Thrombus Volume Predicts Aneurysm Expansion with Type II Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Several studies have analyzed risk factors that may influence the incidence of type II endoleak with sac expansion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, the impact of intraluminal thrombus volume on the incidence of sac expansion with type II endoleak requires further analysis. This study examined the correlation between preoperative intraluminal thrombus and the incidence of type II endoleak and late sac expansion by measuring the thrombus volume.

METHODS

Between June 2007 and March 2014, 423 patients underwent EVAR at our institution. Two hundred and eighty patients with preoperative and postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) were included in this study. Data were collected prospectively and supplemented with a retrospective review of the medical records and radiologic images, and demographic and clinical characteristic profiles were collected. Logistic regression and Cox regression analyses were used to assess each variable's association with the incidences of persistent or new endoleak and sac expansion.

RESULTS

Of the 280 patients, 46.7% (131 patients) had persistent type II endoleak, and 19.6% (55 patients) had persistent type II endoleak with significant sac expansion (≥5 mm). The mean follow-up duration was 60 months (interquartile range, 24-72 months). Cox regression analysis showed that older age (P = 0.001), intraluminal thrombus volume ratio (thrombus volume [T vol]/aortic aneurysm volume [A vol]) (P = 0.042) and IMA diameter (P = 0.004) were significant predictors of the incidence of sac expansion with persistent or new type II endoleak. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed a cutoff of 51% T vol/A vol (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.59) and 2.9 mm (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.60). The rate of freedom from sac expansion (≥5 mm) during followup was significantly higher in patients with ≥51% T vol/A vol than in those with a lower T vol/A vol (P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative sac thrombus volume, IMA diameter, and older age predict the incidence of aneurysm expansion with type II endoleak after EVAR.

A simplified method of pre-emptive perigraft aortic sac embolization to prevent type II endoleak using the Excluder endograft

Pre-emptive, nonselective perigraft embolization of abdominal aortic aneurysm sac to reduce the risk of type II endoleak has been previously reported with a percutaneous technique using contralateral access with resheathing for coiling. The approach has been modified to simplify the procedure and to eliminate unnecessary sheath exchanges.

Midterm results of periprosthetic coiling embolization in high-risk patients

Background

With increasing interest in the prevention of type II endoleaks (EII), the aim of this study was to report midterm results on the intraoperative coiling embolization of the periprosthetic aneurysmal sac in patients at high-risk of EII.

Methods

A retrospective review study was conducted with 124 patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm who accorded with the inclusion criteria, including 66 patients who underwent standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (Group A) and 58 patients who underwent aneurysmal sac coiling embolization (Group B). Baseline data and follow-up results were analyzed.

Results

A mean of 2.84 ± 1.45 coils (range 1–9) were used in Group B. The general incidence of an EII was 15.32% (19/124) at a mean follow-up time of 46.60 ± 15.14 months, with 22.7% (15/66) in Group A and 6.9% (4/58) in Group B (χ² = 5.62; P = 0.018). Logistic multivariate analysis revealed that the independent risk factors of an EII were no sac embolization and a sac volume ≥128 cm³. The Kaplan-Meier subgroup analysis showed no difference in regard to the rate of freedom from EII between the two groups either with a larger or smaller sac.

Conclusions

These results suggest that periprosthetic coiling embolization in patients at high-risk of EII is safe and effective in the prevention of EII. The preventive effect seemed to be weakened when the sac volumes were taken into consideration at midterm follow-up.

Does Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Repair Change Psoas Muscle Volume?

BACKGROUND

Because endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) lowers the lumbar arterial blood flow, we hypothesized that the volume of the psoas muscle decreases after surgery. When internal iliac artery (IIA) embolization is performed, the lumbar arterial blood flow further decreases; therefore, we also hypothesized that the decrease in the volume of the psoas muscle becomes more significant. This study was performed to assess the volume change in the psoas muscle after EVAR.

METHODS

Fifty-three consecutive patients who underwent EVAR from January 2016 to December 2016 were included. The psoas muscle volume was measured by preoperative and postoperative computed tomography (CT). Postoperative CT scans were performed 6-12 months after EVAR. Axial CT images with a 2-mm slice thickness were used to measure the psoas muscle volume. Data were transferred to a 3-dimensional workstation, and the psoas muscle volume was measured.

RESULTS

In the EVAR group, the volume of the psoas muscle decreased by an average of 5.8 mL (4.6%) from 114.8 ± 32.0 mL preoperatively to 109.0 ± 30.3 mL postoperatively (P < 0.01). There was a significant difference in the change in the psoas muscle volume between patients with and without IIA embolization (embolization group: preoperative 118.1 ± 31.0 mL, postoperative 107.5 ± 29.2 mL, mean volume change rate -8.8%; nonembolization group: preoperative 114.0 ± 32.3 mL, postoperative 109.4 ± 30.7 mL, mean volume change rate -3.6%; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The psoas muscle volume is reduced with EVAR. Moreover, when the IIA is embolized, the psoas muscle volume is further reduced.

Sac Embolization and Side Branch Embolization for Preventing Type II Endoleaks After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Meta-analysis

Purpose:To investigate the efficacy and safety of preoperative side branch embolization or intraoperative sac embolization for preventing type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify studies that evaluated the outcomes of sac embolization vs no embolization or side branch embolization vs no embolization in patients who received EVAR. Among the 904 studies screened, 17 studies with 2084 participants were included in this review. Outcome measures included the type II endoleak rate, the reintervention rate for type II endoleaks, the incidence of types I/III endoleaks, and the rate of complications. Fixed (no heterogeneity) or random effects models were constructed for each outcome; the results are presented as the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The sac embolization group had significantly lower type II endoleak (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p<0.001) and reintervention (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33, p<0.001) rates than the no embolization group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were found for the type I/III endoleak rate (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37, p=0.21) or complication rate (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.70, p=0.77). Compared with no embolization, side branch embolization was also associated with a decrease in type II endoleak (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60, p<0.001) and reinterventions (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27, p<0.001). One severe procedure-related complication (fatal colon ischemia) was reported in the side branch embolization group. Conclusion: Sac embolization and side branch embolization are safe and effective in preventing type II endoleaks. Further randomized trials are needed to directly compare the clinical outcomes of these procedures.

The natural history of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair justifies conservative management

Objective

Management of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair has been controversial. Some advocate for conservative management, while others believe that intervention is indicated. This study investigated the natural history of type 2 endoleaks in order to derive direction in management.

Methods

Patients who had endovascular aneurysm repair at the Veterans Affairs Long Beach were retrospectively identified and computerized tomographic angiography was independently reviewed by a radiologist and a vascular surgeon. Type 2 endoleaks were analyzed for the following outcomes: rupture, duration of endoleak, spontaneous resolution, changes in the size of the aneurysm sac, and reintervention rates.

Results

Of the 160 patients who had completed required follow-up to date (mean 3 years) after endovascular aneurysm repair, 39 (24.4%) patients were identified as having a type 2 endoleak on computerized tomographic angiography imaging. 6 (15.4%) of these 39 patients required repair due to aneurysm sac growth >1 cm. 2 (5.13%) were repaired with an open procedure and 4 (10.3%) with an endovascular approach. Of these 6 aneurysm leaks requiring repair, 4 (66.7%) had a simultaneous endoleak (types 1 or 3) in addition to the identified type 2 endoleak. Spontaneous resolution of type 2 endoleaks occurred in 16 (41.0%) patients. 4 patients (10.3%) had delayed type 2 endoleaks that presented 4, 9, 12, and 23 months after their 30 day post op computed tomography was normal. None of the 4 patients with delayed type 2 endoleaks required reintervention and none had aneurysm sac growth greater than 5 mm.

Conclusions

Overall, we found that 85% of patients who had type 2 endoleaks did not require intervention after a mean follow-up time of 3 years. The association of a type 1 or 3 endoleak with a type 2 endoleak was more likely to require correction due to aneurysm expansion >1 cm, thus type 2 endoleaks associated with another type of endoleak require more aggressive management.

Evaluation and Coil Embolization of the Aortic Side Branches for Prevention of Type II Endoleak after Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Objectives: Aneurysm shrinkage after EVAR is the strong factor of favorable outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), and type II endoleaks is the risk factor of no aneurysm shrinkage or aneurysm enlargement in the long term. In this study, we evaluate the aortic side branches relate to early postoperative type II endoleak, and performed coil embolization for those vessels for prevention of type II endoleak.

Methods: Patency and diameter of aortic side branches including inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and lumbar artery (LA) were evaluated in 56 consecutive patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm who were scheduled for EVAR. Coil embolization with Interlock was performed in 24 patients during EVAR for all patent IMA and LA with maximal diameter more than 2.0 mm. Computed tomography was performed one week after EVAR for evaluation of endoleak.

Results: In patients with IMA more than 2.5 mm in diameter, the frequency of type II endoleak was approximately 90% regardless of the number of patent LA. In case with patent IMA less than 2.5 mm or with 2 or more patent LA larger than 2.0 mm, the frequency of type II endoleak was 46 to 67%. Coil embolization for IMA was successfully performed in 15/16 patients (94%). Coil embolization of LA was performed for patent LA larger than 2.0 mm and 29 out of 45 LA (64%) were successfully occluded. There was no perioperative complication associated with coil embolization. The frequency of type II endoleak was significantly lower in patients with coil embolization than those without coil embolization (4.2% vs 58.9%, p<0.0001).

Conclusion: Patent IMA and LA in diameter larger than 2.0 mm were associated with type II endoleak one week after EVAR, and coil embolization with Interlock during EVAR is safe and effective procedure to prevent type II endoleak. (This is a translation of Jpn J Vasc Surg 2016; 25: 321–328.)

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Type II Endoleaks

Type II endoleaks occur commonly following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Although they remain enigmatic, multiples studies have evaluated preoperative risk factors and strategies for prevention of type II endoleaks. Prophylactic treatment of type II endoleaks can include embolization of accessory arteries, as well as complete aneurysmal sac occlusion. Regular post-operative surveillance and screening for type II endoleaks with triple-phase CTA is the standard of care. Aneurysm size and growth rate are factors that predict whether a persistence type II endoleak is hemodynamically significant, and whether it requires treatment with percutaneous trans-lumbar or trans-arterial embolization techniques. Less commonly, type II endoleaks can be repaired using laparoscopic or open surgical ligation of feeder arterial branches. Emerging methods using endovascular aneurysm sac sealing technology may continue to alter the incidence and long-term management strategies of type II endoleaks. Here we review the latest strategies in the treatment of Type II endoleaks following EVAR.

Laparoscopic ligation of celiac trunk and splenic artery aneurysms with function preservation

Celiac trunk aneurysms (CTAs) are rare and usually asymptomatic. Although most of these aneurysms can be treated with percutaneous embolization, some uncommon locations of the aneurysm may make this approach impossible. We report a patient with a celiac trunk aneurysm (CTA) and a proximal splenic artery aneurysm (SAA). Due to the size and location of these two aneurysms, after multidisciplinary discussion, endovascular management was considered inappropriate and they were treated by laparoscopic ligation of the two aneurysms and revascularization. This procedure offers good postoperative recovery with good preservation of the visceral function. Some collateral vessels in the viscera were obvious on postoperative day 7.

Endovascular Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: the Year in Review

OPINION STATEMENT

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the predominant method of treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The use of conscious sedation with local anesthesia and percutaneous femoral access has further decreased the morbidity of the procedure. Current devices can more effectively manage increasingly "hostile" aneurysm necks, while chimney grafts or dedicated fenestrated stent-grafts can be used for juxta-renal disease with favorable results. However, endovascular repair does present a new set of challenges, and endoleaks remain an area of concern. While there is general consensus that type I and type III endoleaks require treatment, type II endoleaks are the topic of ongoing research and debate. Development of devices and techniques to prevent and treat endoleak continues to progress. Advances in contrast-enhanced ultrasound are reducing reliance on computed tomography for post-operative monitoring. This is an important step in this population at high risk for the development of kidney failure. Despite these many innovations, further research is needed to optimize the care of patients with AAA.

Type II endoleaks: challenges and solutions

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