Management of Type II Endoleaks: Preoperative versus Postoperative versus Expectant Management

Embolization of a type 2 endoleak using a micropuncture introducer set and a triple-coaxial system through the deep iliac circumflex artery via the ipsilateral femoral artery

An 83-year-old man underwent embolization for a type 2 endoleak following endovascular aortic repair for an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The type 2 endoleak originated from the left iliac circumflex artery, which was located very close to the puncture site in the left femoral artery. This proximity made the embolization procedure challenging; however, by employing a combination of a micropuncture introducer set and a triple-coaxial system, embolization with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate was successfully achieved.

Transcaval Coil Embolization of Type 2 Endoleak After Endovascular Aortic Repair: An Institutional Review

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aortic repair may be complicated by type 2 endoleaks. Intervention is generally recommended when the native sac continues to grow more than 5 mm. Transcaval coil embolization (TCE) of the native aneurysm sac is an emerging technique for repair of type 2 endoleaks. The objective of this study is to report an institutional review of our experience with this technique.

METHODS

11 patients underwent TCE during the study period. Data were gathered on demographics, size increase of native aneurysm sac, operative details, and outcomes. Technical success was defined as resolution of the endoleak during completion sac angiogram at end of the procedure. Clinical success was defined as no growth in the aneurysm sac at interval follow-up.

RESULTS

Coils were the embolant of choice in all cases. Technical success was achieved in all cases except 1 resulting in a 91% technical success rate. Median follow-up was 25 months (range, 3-33). Of the ten patients that had technically successful embolization, 8 patients had repeat computed tomography (CT) scans which showed no further expansion of the native sac resulting in a 80% clinical success rate. No complications were noted immediately post-op or at interval follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This institutional retrospective review demonstrates that TCE is an effective and safe option for type 2 endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in selected patients with favorable anatomy. Longer term follow-up, more patients, and comparison studies are needed to further define durability and efficacy.

Applying patient characteristics, stent-graft selection, and pre-operative computed tomographic angiography data to a machine learning algorithm: Is endoleak prediction possible?

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to predict endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using machine learning (ML) integration of patient characteristics, stent-graft configuration, and a selection of vessel lengths, diameters and angles measured using pre-operative computed tomography angiography (CTA).

METHODS

We evaluated 1-year follow-up CT scans (arterial and delayed phases) in patients who underwent EVAR for the presence or absence of an endoleak. We also obtained data on the patient characteristics, stent-graft selection, and preoperative CT vessel morphology (diameter, length, and angle). The extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) for the ML system was trained on 30 patients with endoleaks and 81 patients without. We evaluated 5217 items in 111 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms, including the patient characteristics, stent-graft configuration and vascular morphology acquired using pre-EVAR abdominal CTA. We calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of our receiver operating characteristic analysis using the ML method.

RESULTS

The AUC, accuracy, 95% confidence interval (CI), sensitivity, and specificity were 0.88, 0.88, 0.79-0.97, 0.85, and 0.91 for ML applying XGBoost, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic performance of the ML method was useful when factors such as the patient characteristics, stent-graft configuration and vessel length, diameter and angle of the vessels were considered from pre-EVAR CTA.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Based on our findings, we suggest that this is a potential application of ML for the interpretation of abdominal CTA scans in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms scheduled for EVAR.

Efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in detection of type II endoleak after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: A prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in detection of type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

From January 2015 to April 2018, 205 patients underwent EVAR were included. CEUS and computed tomography angiography (CTA) were performed at 1-month follow-up postoperatively to detect type II endoleak. CEUS was performed at 3- and 6-month follow-up to evaluate the development of type II endoleak. The diameter extension of type II endoleak increased greater than 5 mm was defined as enlarge group, and that increased less than 5 mm was defined as stable group. The difference of arrival time (AT) of contrast agent, maximum cross-sectional area (MCSA) of contrast agent and the blood flow velocity (BFV) of the abnormal blood around the stent graft were compared.

RESULTS

At 1-month after EVAR, 65 cases of endoleak were detected by CEUS, including 25 cases of type I, 30 cases of type II endoleak and 10 cases of type III endoleak. Among them, 50 cases were also detected by CTA. The diameter extension of 12 cases of type II endoleak increased greater than 5 mm, and that of eight cases increased less than 5 mm. The average AT of the enlarge group was significantly shorter than that of the stable group, while the MCSA of contrast agent and the BFV were significantly higher than that of the stable group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CEUS has predictive value for the natural outcome of type II endoleak.

Successful repair of an arteriovesical fistula as a complication after coil embolization for right hypogastric artery aneurysm

An 84-year-old man has a history of a right hypogastric artery aneurysm that was excluded with endograft several years ago. His course was complicated by a type II endoleak with an enlarging aneurysm that required multiple attempts of coil embolization. Several years later, he presented with gross hematuria and was found to have embolization coils extruding into his bladder and an arteriovesical fistula. As seen in this case, endovascular intervention for a type II endoleak is not benign. We describe a novel complication of an arteriovesical fistula that necessitated a difficult repair and ultimate revascularization.

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Short-term survival benefits of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair (OR) of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms have been shown in randomised trials, but this early survival benefit is soon lost. Survival benefit of EVAR was unclear at follow-up to 10 years.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term efficacy of EVAR against OR in patients deemed fit and suitable for both procedures (EVAR trial 1; EVAR-1); and against no intervention in patients unfit for OR (EVAR trial 2; EVAR-2). To appraise the long-term significance of type II endoleak and define criteria for intervention.

DESIGN

Two national, multicentre randomised controlled trials: EVAR-1 and EVAR-2.

SETTING

Patients were recruited from 37 hospitals in the UK between 1 September 1999 and 31 August 2004.

PARTICIPANTS

Men and women aged ≥ 60 years with an aneurysm of ≥ 5.5 cm (as identified by computed tomography scanning), anatomically suitable and fit for OR were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to either EVAR (n = 626) or OR (n = 626) in EVAR-1 using computer-generated sequences at the trial hub. Patients considered unfit were randomly assigned to EVAR (n = 197) or no intervention (n = 207) in EVAR-2. There was no blinding.

INTERVENTIONS

EVAR, OR or no intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end points were total and aneurysm-related mortality until mid-2015 for both trials. Secondary outcomes for EVAR-1 were reinterventions, costs and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In EVAR-1, over a mean of 12.7 years (standard deviation 1.5 years; maximum 15.8 years), we recorded 9.3 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 8.9 deaths per 100 person-years in the OR group [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.27; p = 0.14]. At 0-6 months after randomisation, patients in the EVAR group had a lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.02 for total mortality; HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.93 for aneurysm-related mortality; p = 0.031), but beyond 8 years of follow-up patients in the OR group had a significantly lower mortality (adjusted HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.56, p = 0.048 for total mortality; HR 5.82, 95% CI 1.64 to 20.65, p = 0.0064 for aneurysm-related mortality). The increased aneurysm-related mortality in the EVAR group after 8 years was mainly attributable to secondary aneurysm sac rupture, with increased cancer mortality also observed in the EVAR group. Overall, aneurysm reintervention rates were higher in the EVAR group than in the OR group, 4.1 and 1.7 per 100 person-years, respectively (p < 0.001), with reinterventions occurring throughout follow-up. The mean difference in costs over 14 years was £3798 (95% CI £2338 to £5258). Economic modelling based on the outcomes of the EVAR-1 trial showed that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime exceeds conventional thresholds used in the UK. In EVAR-2, patients died at the same rate in both groups, but there was suggestion of lower aneurysm mortality in those who actually underwent EVAR. Type II endoleak itself is not associated with a higher rate of mortality.

LIMITATIONS

Devices used were implanted between 1999 and 2004. Newer devices might have better results. Later follow-up imaging declined, particularly for OR patients. Methodology to capture reinterventions changed mainly to record linkage through the Hospital Episode Statistics administrative data set from 2009.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR has an early survival benefit but an inferior late survival benefit compared with OR, which needs to be addressed by lifelong surveillance of EVAR and reintervention if necessary. EVAR does not prolong life in patients unfit for OR. Type II endoleak alone is relatively benign.

FUTURE WORK

To find easier ways to monitor sac expansion to trigger timely reintervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55703451.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the results will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Atypical Presentation of a Type 2 Endoleak following Emergency Open Repair of a Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Background

An endoleak is a common complication following EVAR. Specifically, a Type 2 endoleak occurs because of retrograde flow from lumbar vessels outside the endograft within the aneurysm sac. Even though it is common following EVAR, it has not been identified as a complication following open ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

Report

A 73-year-old male underwent open repair of a ruptured AAA. Five months later, computed tomography revealed filling from a lumbar vessel mimicking a Type 2 “endoleak.” The initial ultrasound showed a single pair of lumbar vessels with aneurysm sac expansion 8 weeks later. The “endoleak” and expanding sac were treated, and the 2-year surveillance demonstrated sac shrinkage.

Discussion

Because endoleak is a complication after EVAR, this case provides a unique presentation of Type 2 “endoleak” physiology following open repair of a ruptured AAA. It is believed that it is necessary to expand the list of possible complications after open ruptured AAA repair to include “endoleaks.”

•

An endoleak is a common complication observed after EVAR, but not open AAA repair.

•

Type 2 endoleak after open AAA repair has a similar treatment paradigm to EVAR.

•

Translumbar embolization done utilized bony landmarks without endograft as landmark.

•

Endoleak is a complication of EVAR, but open AAA repair can mimic similar pathology.

Embo-EVAR: A Technique to Prevent Type II Endoleak? A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Intraprocedural aneurysm sac embolization (embo-EVAR) during endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR) using coils and fibrin glue is a technique for preventing type II endoleak (EII). Our aim is to evaluate feasibility, safety and clinical outcome of this promising approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective clinical case analysis of 72 patients who underwent EVAR during the period 2011-2014. Two groups were compared at 6 and 12 months follow-up with contrast media computed tomography scan and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging: consecutively, 36 patients (group A) treated with classic EVAR and 36 patients (group B) treated with embo-EVAR. Coils were released filling better as possible the aneurysm sac; the embolization was completed by injecting fibrin glue. Device and materials used, differential systemic and sac pressures, presence of any endoleak, and complication were registered.

RESULTS

In our experience, we had 100% technical success without surgical conversion. Embo-EVAR was performed, after endograft deployment, in group B patients, all with ratio of Δ-pressures (obtained from Δ-sac pressure/Δ-differential pressure) > 0.16. No early or late complications occurred and mortality was nil. Follow-up was performed with computed tomography-angiography and CEUS at 6 and 12 months. We observed 9 type II and 1 type Ia endoleak in group A and 2 type II and 1 type Ib endoleaks in group B. Mean radiation exposure time was 30.3 min in group A and 43.3 min in group B. EVAR procedure average cost was 9,000 €. The average cost of sac embolization was 1,500€.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a randomized study is necessary, embo-EVAR may be a valid approach to prevent type II endoleaks and further complications. Mild costs and exposure-dose increase could be accepted to avoid reinterventions, and in our experience, it could be routinely performed with excellent results.

When Aortic Stenting Alone Does Not Solve It: Mass Effect of Thoracic Aneurysms

Thoracic aneurysms can potentially cause substantial compression of adjacent structures, creating substantial symptoms. We present a case of a 56-year-old woman with fatigue and dyspnea for 6 months. We discuss her initial endovascular treatment, which was insufficient to improve symptoms, and further surgical intervention was needed to solve the issue.

Aneurysm Sac Enlargement after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

The aim of this study is to give an overview of current knowledge regarding abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) growth after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) that could potentially lead to aortic rupture. A search on Pubmed was performed. A total of 705 articles were found after initial search, of which 49 were included in the final selection. Reports on the incidence of aneurysm enlargement after EVAR vary between 0.2% and 41%. Continuous growth could lead to rupture of the aneurysm sac. There are several supposed risk factors for growth after EVAR. Endoleaks remain a hot topic as these could lead to persistent pressurization of the aneurysm sac causing growth. Various types of endoleak exist, of which each kind requires an individual treatment approach, other risk factors for aneurysm growth include endotension and the use of EVAR outside instructions for use (IFU). Reinterventions after EVAR are common; however, it is unclear how frequently these are required because of aneurysm enlargement. Aneurysm enlargement after EVAR remains a subject of debate, as this could lead to aortic rupture. This emphasizes the need for life-long radiologic surveillance during follow-up. Aortic growth after EVAR is often a result of endoleak; however, in some cases, no endoleak is detectable. Endoleak in combination with aortic growth >5 mm generally requires reintervention. A cause of concern is the liberal use of endovascular devices outside the IFU that may result in increased risk of AAA growth after EVAR.

Length of abdominal aortic aneurysm and incidence of endoleaks type II after endovascular repair

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the predicting factors for the development of endoleak type II, its frequency and influencing factors after elective endovascular repair (EVAR) of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected in a unicenter observational study (tertiary center of [endo-] vascular surgery) and retrospectively evaluated in patients who had undergone elective EVAR of AAA. Vascular (lumbar arteries (LA) and inferior mesenteric artery, aneurysm) and general patient (habits, medication, basic diseases) as well as procedural characteristics, were analyzed for their association with the development of endoleak type II. Pre and postinterventional computed tomography (CT) scans were evaluated for aneurysm anatomy, in particular, postinterventional growth or shrinkage as well detection of an endoleak of each type.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 82 patients (mean age, 72 (52-87) years; 77 men, 93.9%) throughout 36 months. The median follow-up period was 29.5 months (range, 1-57). Overall, 51 endoleaks type II (62.2%) were identified at any time during the postinterventional follow-up period. In the Cox regression, AAA length was the only significant predictor (P = 0.024; hazard ratio (HR), 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.14). Thirteen patients (15.8%) underwent at least one secondary intervention. Aneurysm growth was observed in four patients because of an endoleak type II (4.9%). No AAA rupture occurred in association with an isolated endoleak type II.

CONCLUSION

The preoperative AAA length (correlating with the number of LA) can be considered a risk factor for postinterventional occurrence of endoleak type II prompting to greater attention and possible preemptive therapy.

Impact of Age and Intraluminal Thrombus Volume on Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Sac Enlargement after Endovascular Repair

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aneurysmal sac enlargement after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is a critical issue. However, the predictors have not yet been fully determined. Although unrecognized, intraluminal thrombus volume (ITV) is an important index. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the correlation among preoperative ITV, residual type II endoleak, and sac enlargement after EVAR, based on the long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2011, 151 consecutive patients underwent EVAR at a single cardiovascular institute. Emergency surgery was performed on 7 patients (4.7%). Of 148 patients excluding 3 patients with residual type I endoleak, sac enlargement (≥5 mm progression) after EVAR was observed in 24 patients (16.2%) and 8 patients required reintervention. The mean follow-up period was 2.4 ± 1.4 years. The outer volume and enhanced luminal volume were calculated from enhanced 1-mm slice computed tomography, and the difference was defined as ITV.

RESULTS

Age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.20, P = 0.0007), outer volume (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, P = 0.0118), percentage of ITV (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.96, P = .0027), and type II endoleak (HR 10.15, 95% CI 3.55-31.10, P < 0.0001) were isolated as predictors of sac enlargement by multivariate analysis. Also, patent inferior mesenteric artery (odds ratio [OR] 4.45, 95% CI 1.38-20.07, P = 0.0105) and percentage of ITV < 30.1% (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.32-10.30, P = 0.0112) were detected as independent risk factors for residual type II endoleaks. Additionally, in patients without endoleak, patient age (≥83 years) was an independent risk factor for sac enlargement after EVAR (P = 0.0056).

CONCLUSION

Age and ITV percentage had significantly great impact on sac enlargement and type II endoleak after EVAR.

The Roadside Technique for Type II Endoleak Embolization 4 Years after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Endoleaks are the most common cause of reintervention after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Type II endoleaks have been implicated as a risk factor for expansion and rupture. Several techniques have been described to manage type II endoleaks, being transarterial catheterization the most commonly used. In some cases this technique can be difficult or impossible to achieve. We report the use of a technique that offers a direct access to the aneurysm sac and the possibility of catheterization of the involved vessels or the embolization of the communication between them, even 4 years after EVAR.

Embolization by micro navigation for treatment of persistent type 2 Endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Background:Endovascular repair has become established as a safe and effective method for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. One major complication of this treatment is leakage, or endoleaks, of which type 2 leaks are the most common.Objective:To conduct a brief review of the literature and evaluate the safety and effectiveness of embolization by micronavigation for treatment of type 2 endoleaks.Method:A review of medical records from patients who underwent endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms identified 5 patients with persistent type 2 endoleaks. These patients were submitted to embolization by micronavigation.Results:In all cases, angiographic success was achieved and control CT scans showed absence of type 2 leaks and aneurysm sacs that had reduced in size after the procedure.Conclusion:Treatment of type 2 endoleaks using embolization by micronavigation is an effective and safe method and should be considered as a treatment option for this complication after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Surgical experience of persistent type 2 endoleaks with aneurysmal sac enlargement after endovascular aneurysm repair

Herein, we present a case of a successful treatment of persistent type 2 endoleaks associated with aneurysmal sac enlargement after endovascular aneurysm repair in an elderly patient. We confirmed the diagnosis by abdominal computed tomography and selective angiography revealing an 11.0-cm aneurysm sac with type 2 endoleaks. An attempt for the endovascular embolization of collateral arteries was unsuccessful due to anatomic variations and their multiple complex communications. Instead, transperitoneal sacotomy and direct suturing on the feeding target vessels was successfully performed without any endograft damage. In conclusion, sacotomy appears to be a feasible therapeutic substitute where endovascular or other techniques have a high risk of failure and lead to unsuccessful results.

[Endoleaks - when is treatment necessary?]

Currently the majority of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs are endovascular procedures using a stent graft. This method continues to be questioned due to an up to 50 % incidence of endoleaks, i.e. the postinterventional persistence of blood flow outside the graft and within the aneurysm sac, potentially bearing the risk of a further increase of the aneurysm diameter and aneurysm rupture. Currently a total of five different endoleak types can be distinguished. Multiphase computed tomography (CT) is the standard imaging method for the detection and classification of endoleaks or alternatively contrast-enhanced ultrasound can be used. The different types of endoleak have very different therapeutic implications. In direct endoleaks (types I and III) the systemic blood pressure is directly transferred to the aneurysm wall which carries a high risk of rupture and in general an immediate intervention is indicated. Indirect endoleaks (types II, IV and V) take a more benign course and in the majority of cases treatment is only necessary when further aneurysm expansion occurs.

Endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: what one needs to know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current state of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of the different types of endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (endovascular aneurysm repair, EVAR).

RECENT FINDINGS

Endoleaks are the most frequent complication after EVAR, the most common indication for secondary interventions, and the most common cause of rupture after EVAR. Imaging is critical for detecting endoleaks. Type I and III endoleaks require urgent intervention to prevent aneurysm rupture. Intervention for other endoleaks or endotension is indicated if the aneurysm sac continues to grow during follow-up. The majority of endoleaks can be treated with endovascular techniques. Open surgical conversion may be considered if the risk of aneurysm rupture is high and if no endovascular options are available or if they have failed.

SUMMARY

Endoleaks continue to be a challenge and this article discusses the different treatment options for endoleaks after EVAR. Long-term follow-up after EVAR is required to diagnose and treat endoleaks before they result in aneurysm rupture. The majority of endoleaks can be treated with endovascular techniques, although open surgical interventions may be required in selected patients.

Type II endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm are not always a benign condition

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine whether type II endoleak (T2E) after endovascular repair of abdominal aorta (EVAR) is a benign condition (ie, not associated with growth, reintervention, rupture, or death).

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent EVAR for atherosclerotic infrarenal aortic aneurysms between June 1995 and May 2010 in the Vascular Surgery Department of Henri Mondor Hospital were prospectively collected. Data from patients presenting with at least one T2E on computed tomography scan during their follow-up were compared with those with no T2E. Three subcategories of T2E were studied according to time of occurrence (early or late), persistence (persistent or transient), and recurrence (recurrent or not recurrent).

RESULTS

Seven hundred patients were included with follow-up ranging from 1 month to 15 years (median, 31.3 months; range, 12.4-61.4); 201 (28.9%) had at least one T2E. Patients with T2Es were significantly older (P < .001), female (P = .015), had larger aneurysms (P = .019), and patent lumbar arteries (P = .003). Patients without T2Es had a higher incidence of current smoking (P < .001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P < .005). Multivariate analysis showed risk of T2E was increased in older patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; confidence interval [CI], 95% 1.02-1.06; P < .001) and in those with patent lumbar arteries (OR, 1.70; CI, 95% 1.16-2.50; P = .007), and was reduced in active smokers (OR, 0.16 CI, 95% 0.04-0.71; P = .015) or patients with coronary artery disease (OR, 0.65; CI, 95% 0.45-0.92; P = .016). Patients with T2Es had more complications (death, rupture, reintervention, or conversion) (P < .001) and greater aneurysm sac enlargement (>5 mm upon follow-up) (P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed T2E was a risk factor for aneurysm diameter growth >5 mm; this risk was increased if T2E persisted more than 6 months (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; CI, 95% 2.55-6.03; P < .001), was recurrent (HR, 1.88; CI, 95% 1.18-3.01; P = .008), or associated with a type I or III endoleak (HR, 1.96; CI, 95% 1.41-2.73; P < .001). Recurrent T2E was associated with a higher rate of reintervention (P = .04) and conversion to open surgery (P = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

Not all T2Es are benign. Recurrent as well as persistent T2Es are prone to life-threatening complications.

Transcaval embolization as an alternative technique for the treatment of type II endoleak after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

The purpose of this report is to highlight our experience with transcaval embolization (TCE) for the management of type II endoleaks (T2Es) as well as to provide a technical description of how to improve procedural safety and success. All patients underwent transfemoral venous access with transcaval puncture into the excluded aneurysm sac with coil placement and selective thrombin injection. Six patients (100% male; mean age [standard deviation] 72.7 [10.8] years) underwent TCE. Technical success was 100% with no postoperative complications. At median follow-up of 8.1 months (range, 2-22 months), two patients had persistent T2Es, with one requiring repeat TCE and the other having cessation of aneurysm growth. The TCE provides a practical alternative to transarterial or translumbar access for the management of T2E, with high degrees of technical and clinical success in this small case series. Larger patient numbers and longer-term follow-up are needed to define procedural efficacy and durability.

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: surveillance of endoleak using maximum transverse diameter of aorta on non-enhanced CT

BACKGROUND

Repeat volumetric analysis of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) after endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) is time-consuming and requires advanced processing, dedicated equipment, and skilled operators.

PURPOSE

To clarify the validity of measuring the maximal short-axis diameter (Dmax) of AAA in follow-up non-enhanced axial CT as a means of detecting substantial endoleaks after EVAR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

CT images were retrospectively reviewed in 47 patients (7 women, 40 men; mean age, 76.2 years) who had no endoleak on initial contrast-enhanced CT after EVAR. Regular follow-up CT studies were performed every 6 months. At each CT study, the Dmax on the CT axial image was measured and compared with that on the last CT (115 data-sets). Contrast-enhanced CT was regarded as the standard of reference to decide the presence or absence of endoleaks. The appearance of endoleak was defined as the end point of this study.

RESULTS

Endoleaks were detected in 17 patients during the follow-up period. Mean Dmax changes for 6 months were significant between positive and negative endoleak cases (1.8 ± 1.9 vs. -1.1 ± 3.0 mm, P < 0.0001). When the Dmax change ≤ 0 mm for 6 months was used as the threshold for negative endoleak, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 74.5, 82.4, 96.1, and 35.9%, respectively. When Dmax change ≤-1 mm was used as the threshold, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 38.8, 100, 100, and 22.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced CT is not required for the evaluation of endoleaks when the Dmax decreases by at least 1 mm over 6 months after EVAR.

Techniques in endovascular aneurysm repair

Endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVARs) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic aneurysms, with over half of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs performed endoluminally each year. Since the first endografts were placed two decades ago, many changes have been made in graft design, operative technique, and management of complications. This paper summarizes modern endovascular grafts, considerations in preoperative planning, and EVAR techniques. Specific areas that are addressed include endograft selection, arterial access, sheath delivery, aortic branch management, graft deployment, intravascular ultrasonography, pressure sensors, management of endoleaks and compressed limbs, and exit strategies.

Incomplete endograft apposition to the aortic arch: bird-beak configuration increases risk of endoleak formation after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

PURPOSE

To determine the clinical importance of the bird-beak configuration after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement to obtain informed consent from patients. Sixty-four patients (40 men, 24 women; mean age, 64 years) who underwent TEVAR were evaluated. The treated diseases included dissection (n = 29), degenerative aneurysm (n = 13), acute traumatic transection (n = 8), pseudoaneurysm (n = 4), penetrating aortic ulcer (n = 6), intramural hematoma (n = 2), and mycotic aneurysm (n = 2). Bird-beak configuration, defined as the incomplete apposition of the proximal endograft with a wedge-shaped gap between the device and the aortic wall, was assessed with postprocedural CT angiography. The presence and length of the bird-beak configuration were compared with the formation of endoleaks and adverse clinical events.

RESULTS

Endoleaks were detected in 26 (40%) of the 64 patients, including 14 with type Ia endoleak formation, one with type Ib endoleak formation, six with type II endoleak formation (from the left subclavian artery), two with type IIo endoleak formation (from other arteries), and three with type III endoleak formation. Bird-beak configuration was observed in 28 (44%) of 64 patients and correlated significantly with the risk of developing a type Ia or IIa endoleak (P < .01). Mean bird-beak length was significantly longer (P < .01) in patients with a type Ia or II endoleak (mean length, 14.3 and 13.9 mm, respectively) than in patients without endoleaks (mean length, 8.4 mm). Adverse events included early aortic-related death in three patients, additional treatment for endoleak in eight patients, and stent-graft collapse or infolding in six patients.

CONCLUSION

Detection of bird-beak configuration is helpful in the prediction of adverse clinical events after TEVAR.