An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of pre-emptive aortic side branch embolization to prevent type II endoleaks after EVAR

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Plug-Based Embolization Techniques of Aortic Side Branches during Standard and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair

Vascular plugs are an evolving family of vessel occluders providing a single-device embolization system for large, high-flow arteries. Nitinol mesh plugs and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane plugs are available in different configurations and sizes to occlude arteries from 3 to 20 mm in diameter. Possible applications during complex endovascular aortic procedures are aortic branch embolization to prevent endoleak or to gain an adequate landing zone, directional branch occlusion, and false lumen embolization in aortic dissection. Plugs are delivered through catheters or introducers, and their technical and clinical results are comparable to those of coil embolization. Plugs are more accurate than coils as repositionable devices, less prone to migration, and have fewer blooming artifacts on postoperative computed tomography imaging. Their main drawback is the need for larger delivery systems. This narrative review describes up-to-date techniques and technology for plug embolization in complex aortic repair.

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.

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

Importance

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

Observations

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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