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

Preemptive treatment of type II endoleak for abdominal aortic aneurysm with renal fusion (horseshoe kidney)

OBJECTIVE

To assess viability and safety of preemptive treatment of type II endoleak for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs.

METHODS

A 69-year-old man with renal fusion (horseshoe kidney) was referred for treatment of a 5.5 cm AAA. His anatomy was suitable for endovascular repair. The risk for type II endoleak was increased because of multiple infrarenal arterial orifices originating within the aneurysm sac. These included an accessory renal artery that supplied the renal isthmus, a patent inferior mesenteric artery, and a pair of large lumbar arteries originating from a single orifice (8 mm) at L3 spinal level. The lumbar orifice was selectively cannulated and occluded with thrombogenic coils 1 week prior to his endovascular aneurysm repair.

RESULTS

Aneurysm repair was uneventful with no signs of early or delayed endoleak and long-term follow-up of 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive coil embolization of perianeurysmal arteries may be considered as a safe and effective strategy for management of potential type II endoleak.

Midterm outcomes of endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm using the cuff-first technique to prevent type II endoleaks

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the initial and midterm outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using the cuff-first technique (CFT) to prevent type II endoleak (T2EL).

METHODS

CFT involves deploying an aortic cuff inside the AAA to cover the ostium of the aortic side branch vessels before deploying the main body. We performed a retrospective review of all patients undergoing EVAR with CFT or side branch embolization (SBE) for AAAs at The Jikei University Hospital between 2016 and 2022. Primary endpoint was the rate of aneurysm sac shrinkage. Secondary endpoints were procedure time, radiation exposure, technical and clinical success rates, occurrence of T2EL, and freedom from reintervention or aneurysm-related death.

RESULTS

Of 406 patients who underwent EVAR for AAAs, CFT was utilized in 56 (CFT group) and SBE in 35 (SBE group); all 91 patients were included in this study. There were no differences in patient demographics between groups, but there were differences in patency rate of the inferior mesenteric artery and absent intraluminal thrombus. The technical success rate per target vessel in the CFT and SBE group was 97.8% and 91.8%, and the clinical success rate was 91.0% and 100%, respectively. The median procedure time was shorter for CFT than for SBE: CFT, 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-14) minutes vs SBE, 25 (IQR, 18.5-45) minutes; P < .05), and median radiation exposure was lower for CFT than for SBE (CFT, 1455 (IQR, 840-2634) mGy vs SBE, 2353 (IQR, 1552-3586) mGy; P < .05). During the median follow-up of 25 months (IQR, 12.5-47 months), sac shrinkage occurred at similar rates in both groups (CFT, 37.5% vs SBE, 40.0%; P = .812), and there were no differences in freedom from reintervention (CFT, 96.2% and 91.4% at 12 and 36 months vs SBE, 100% and 89.5% at 12 and 36 months; log-rank P = .761) and freedom from aneurysm-related death (100% at 36 months in both groups; log-rank P = .440). The odds ratio of CFT vs SBE for sac regression was calculated by adjusting for inferior mesenteric artery patency and absent intraluminal thrombus, resulting in no statistical significance (odds ratio, 1.231; 95% confidence interval, 0.486-3.122).

CONCLUSIONS

CFT is feasible with a shorter procedure time and lower radiation exposure than SBE and comparable mid-term outcomes, including sac shrinkage rate, compared with SBE. We believe that CFT, if anatomically suitable, is an alternative to SBE for the prevention of T2EL during EVAR.

Preemptive Embolization of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Sac Side Branch Arteries Promotes Early Sac Shrinkage after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair 1

BACKGROUND

The association between the occlusion rate of the side branch arteries branching from the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac and aneurysm sac shrinkage is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preemptive embolization of multiple side branch arteries branching from the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac in early aneurysm sac shrinkage after endovascular aneurysm repair.

METHODS

Patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms, with or without preemptive embolization of multiple side branch arteries, including the inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar arteries, between January 2016 and August 2021, were retrospectively evaluated. Preemptive embolization was introduced at our institution in January 2018 and has been performed in all patients who undergo endovascular aneurysm repair since then. We compared occlusion rates of the side branch arteries, frequency of type 2 endoleaks, changes in aneurysm sac size, percentage of aneurysm sac size decrease, and frequency of reduction in the aneurysm sac diameter by > 5 mm.

RESULTS

The study included 43 patients in the embolization group and 20 in the nonembolization group. Preemptive embolization was successfully performed without any ischemic complications. The total occlusion rate of side branch arteries was significantly higher in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group (70.2% vs. 29.3%, P < 0.05). At 24 months of follow-up, the type 2 endoleak frequency was significantly lower in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group (6.9% vs. 31.6%, P < 0.05). The frequency of reduction in the aneurysm sac diameter by > 5 mm was significantly higher in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group at 24 months (62.1% vs. 31.6% P < 0.05). The optimal cutoff value for the total occlusion rate of the side branch arteries to achieve reduction in the aneurysm sac diameter by > 5 mm at 24 months, after endovascular aneurysm repair, was 66.7% in all patients (area under the curve = 0.634; sensitivity = 62.5%; specificity = 70.8%). These findings suggest that occluding 66.7% or more of the side branch arteries may result in early aneurysmal shrinkage.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive embolization of multiple side branch arteries, branching from the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac, may contribute to early aneurysm sac shrinkage; this may serve as a marker for fewer late complications after endovascular aneurysm repair.

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.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Accessory Renal Artery Exclusion during Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Accessory renal arteries (ARAs) frequently coexist with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and can influence treatment. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the ARA's exclusion effect on patients undergoing standard endovascular aneurysm repair for AAA.

METHODS

The study focused on medium- and long-term outcomes, including type II endoleak, aneurysmal sac changes, mortality, reoperation rates, renal function, and infarction post-operatively.

RESULTS

76 patients treated with EVAR for AAA were included. One hundred and two ARAs were identified: 69 originated from the neck, 30 from the sac, and 3 from the iliac arteries. The ARA treatment was embolization in 15 patients and coverage in 72. Technical success was 100%. One-month post-operative computed tomography angiography (CTA) revealed that 76 ARAs (74.51%) were excluded. Thirty-day complications included renal deterioration in 7 patients (9.21%) and a blood pressure increase in 15 (19.73%). During follow-up, 16 patients (21.05%) died, with three aneurysm-related deaths (3.94%). ARA-related type II endoleak (T2EL) was significantly associated with the ARA's origin in the aneurysmatic sac. Despite reinterventions were not significantly linked to any factor, post-operative renal infarction was correlated with an ARA diameter greater than 3 mm and ARA embolization.

CONCLUSION

ARAs can influence EVAR outcomes, with anatomical and procedural factors associated with T2EL and renal infarction. Further studies are needed to optimize the management of ARAs during EVAR.

Importance of sac regression after EVAR and the role of EndoAnchors

The initial success and widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms have been tempered by numerous reports of secondary interventions and increased long-term mortality compared with open repair. Over the past decade, several studies on postoperative sac dynamics after EVAR have suggested that the presence of sac regression is a benign feature with a favorable prognosis. Conversely, increasing sacs and even stable sacs can be indicators of more unstable sac behavior with worse outcomes in the long-term. Endoleaks were initially perceived as the main drivers of sac behavior. However, the observation that sac regression can occur in the presence of endoleaks, and vice versa - increasing sacs without evidence of endoleak - on imaging studies, suggests the involvement of other contributing factors. These factors can be divided into anatomical factors, patient characteristics, sac thrombus composition, and device-related factors. The shift of interest away from especially type 2 endoleaks is further supported by promising results with the use of EndoAnchors regarding postoperative sac behavior. This review provides an overview of the existing literature on the implications and known risk factors of post-EVAR sac behavior, describes the accurate measurement of sac behavior, and discusses the use of EndoAnchors to promote sac regression.

Impact of patient demographics and intraoperative characteristics on abdominal aortic aneurysm sac following endovascular repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become the preferred treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Its main aim is to seal the perfusion of the aneurysmal sac and, thus, induce sac regression and subsequent aortic remodelling. Aneurysmal sac regression has been linked to the short- and long-term clinical outcomes post-EVAR. It has also been shown to be influenced by endograft device choice, with several of these available commercially. This review summarises and discusses current evidence on the influence of pre- and intraoperative factors on sac regression. Additionally, this review aims to highlight the device-specific variations in sac regression to provide an overall holistic approach to treating AAAs with EVAR.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases to identify and extract relevant data.

RESULTS

Female sex, >70 mm original sac diameters, higher pre-procedural fibrinogen levels, smoking and low intra-aneurysmal pressure were found to positively impact sac regression. Whereas renal impairment, ischemic heart disease, high intra-aneurysmal pressure and aneurysm neck thrombus negatively influenced sac regression. Patent lumbar arteries, age, statins and hypercholesterolaemia displayed conflicting evidence regarding sac regression. Regarding the EVAR endografts compared, newer generation devices such as the Anaconda mainly showed the most optimal results.

CONCLUSION

Sac regression following EVAR in AAA is an important prognostic factor for morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, several pre- and intraoperative factors can have an influence on sac regression. Therefore, it is necessary to take them into account when assessing AAA patients for EVAR to optimise outcomes. The choice of EVAR stent-graft can also affect sac regression, with evidence suggesting that the Fenestrated Anaconda is associated with the most favourable results.

High incidence of type 2 endoleak and low associated adverse events in the Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 endoleak (T2EL) is the most common adverse finding on postoperative surveillance after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). A low rate of aneurysm-related mortality with T2EL has been established. However, the optimal management strategy and the efficacy of reintervention remain controversial. This study used data from the Vascular Quality Initiative linked to Medicare claims (VQI-Medicare) to evaluate T2LE in a real-world cohort.

METHODS

This retrospective review of EVAR procedures in VQI-Medicare included patients undergoing their first EVAR procedure between 2015 and 2017. Patients with an endoleak other than T2EL on completion angiogram and those without VQI imaging follow-up were excluded. Patients without Medicare part A or part B enrollment at the time of the procedure or without 1-year complete Medicare follow-up data were also excluded. The exposure variable was T2EL, defined as any branch vessel flow detected within the first postoperative year. Outcomes of interest were mortality, reintervention, T2EL-related reintervention, post-EVAR imaging, and T2EL behavior including spontaneous resolution, aneurysm sac regression, and resolution after reintervention. The association of prophylactic branch vessel embolization (PBE) with T2EL resolution and aneurysm sac regression was also evaluated.

RESULTS

In a final cohort of 5534 patients, 1372 (24.7%) had an identified T2EL and 4162 (75.2%) did not. The median age of patients with and without T2EL was 77 and 75 years, respectively. There were no differences in mortality, imaging, reintervention, or T2EL-related reintervention at 3 years after the procedure for patients with T2EL. The aneurysm sac diameter decreased by 4 mm (range: 9-0 mm decrease) in the total cohort. Patients with inferior mesenteric artery-based T2EL had the smallest decrease in aneurysm diameter (median 1 mm decrease compared with 1.5 mm for accessory renal artery-based T2EL, 2 mm for multiple feeding vessel-based T2EL, and 4 mm for lumbar artery-based T2EL; P < .001). Spontaneous resolution occurred in 73.7% of patients (n = 809). T2ELs with evidence of multiple feeding vessels were associated with the lowest rate of spontaneous resolution (n = 51, 54.9%), compared with those with a single identified feeding vessel of inferior mesenteric artery (n = 99, 60.0%), lumbar artery (n = 655, 77.7%), or accessory renal artery (n = 31, 79.5%) (P < .001). PBE was performed in 84 patients. Patients who underwent PBE and were without detectable T2EL after EVAR had the greatest rate of sac regression at follow-up (7 mm decrease) compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

T2EL after EVAR is associated with high rates of spontaneous resolution, low rates of aneurysm sac growth, and no evidence of increased early mortality or reintervention. PBE in conjunction with EVAR may be indicated in some circumstances.

Effectiveness of Inferior Mesenteric Artery Embolization on Type II Endoleak-Related Complications after Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Type II endoleak is one of the most common and problematic complications after endovascular aneurysm repair. It has been suggested that the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) embolization could prevent further adverse events and postoperative complications. This article is a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were used to identify studies that investigated the effect of IMA embolization on the occurrence of type II endoleaks and secondary interventions in a group of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm who underwent EVAR compared with results after EVAR procedure without embolization. A random effects meta-analysis was performed. Of 3510 studies, 6 studies involving 659 patients were included. Meta-analysis of all studies showed that the rate of secondary interventions was smaller in patients with IMA embolization (OR, 0.17; SE, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.41; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%). The occurrence of type II endoleaks was also smaller in the embolization group (OR, 0.37; SE, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.57; p < 0.01; I2 = 16.20%). This meta-analysis suggests that IMA embolization correlates with lower rates of type II endoleaks and secondary interventions.

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.