Type 2 Endoleak Management

Perioperative and mid-term results of trans-graft embolization of the hypogastric artery for treatment of type II endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair with off-label use of re-entry catheters

Type II endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair are a common scenario that, although infrequently, may sometimes require secondary interventions when leading to significant enlargement of the aneurysm sac. Herein, we present the perioperative and mid-term results of one of our endovascular aortic repair cases with type II endoleak from the hypogastric artery, whose ostium was covered by the prior stent graft limbs and that were successfully treated with a novel technique employing re-entry catheters in an off-label fashion. This technique may represent a valid alternative solution when conventional access between artery and prosthesis is laborious or impossible to achieve.

Physiology of bridging stent grafts after fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair: Where translational science meets the clinical profile

Fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair emerges as the primary therapeutic modality for intricate aortic pathologies encompassing the paravisceral and thoracoabdominal segments, where bridging stent grafts (BSGs) play a vital role in linking the primary aortic endograft with target vessels. Bridging stent grafts can be categorized mainly into self-expanding stent grafts (SESGs) and balloon-expandable stent grafts (BESGs). Physiological factors significantly influence post-complex endovascular aortic repair BSG behaviour, impacting clinical outcomes of SESGs and BESGs in different but overlapping ways. Crucial prerequisites for BSGs encompass not only flexibility but also resilience against mechanical stress and compliance mismatch, especially when bridging the rigid aortic main body with dynamic target vessels. The significance of considering these physiological factors in clinical decision-making is underscored by recognizing the interplay between SESG and BESG characteristics, vessel physiology and patient haemorheology. Such factors include the anatomy and tortuosity of the vessel, diameter of the vessel and BSG, deployment and durability, extrinsic stenosis and respiratory motion. Haemorheological factors, such as anti-thrombotic therapy and hydration status, need to be considered. This narrative review examines both in vitro and in vivo evidence regarding the impact of physiological factors on the behaviour of BSGs and assesses the consequences for clinical outcomes following complex endovascular aortic repair.

Safety Evaluation of Unibody Endografts for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The unibody bifurcated aortic endograft (AFX/AFX2) has emerged as a treatment option for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of the unibody endograft.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed. Studies assessing the unibody endograft for AAA repair between 2014 and 2023 were included. The defined primary outcomes were the incidences of type I, II, and III endoleaks. The secondary outcomes were access site problems, aneurysm-related mortality, aneurysm rupture, all-cause mortality, aneurysm sac growth, limb occlusion, stent graft migration, and technical success rate.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies including 12 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis included 10 studies with 12,690 patients that reported the measured outcomes, and excluded 4 studies that did not. Type II endoleaks had the highest incidence of 12% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4-20%), followed by type III endoleaks with an incidence of 3% (95% CI: 1-5%). The incidence of type I endoleaks was 1% (95% CI: 0-2%). A subgroup analysis by follow-up duration showed that type II endoleak incidence was higher after 1 to 2 years of follow-up than 3 to 4 years of follow-up. The incidence of aneurysmal mortality was 2% (95% CI: 0-7%), limb occlusion was 1% (95% CI: 0-1%), stent graft migration was 1% (95% CI: 0-2%), aneurysmal rupture was 6% (95% CI: 2-11%), access site problems were 7% (95% CI: 2-13%), aneurysm sac growth was 2% (95% CI: 0-4%), all-cause mortality was 21% (95% CI: 4-38%), and technical success rate was 100% (95% CI: 98-100%).

CONCLUSIONS

The unibody endograft is a safe and minimally invasive approach for AAA repair. However, potential complications necessitate close patient follow-up after the intervention.

Technical and clinical success analysis of transarterial embolization therapy in type II endoleaks following endovascular aortic repair

This single-center study investigated the safety and efficacy of transarterial embolization of type II endoleaks for expanding aneurysm sacs following endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).36 patients (33 men, 75.9±6.6 years) underwent a total of 50 endovascular procedures for type II endoleak embolization between 2008 and 2023. Analyses included the assessment of patient risk profiles, aneurysm morphology, and endoleak characteristics. Outcome parameters comprised the technical success (i.e., complete lack of blood flow in the previously perfused aneurysm sac) and complication rates, while clinical success was defined as the absence of endoleak persistence or recurrence and freedom from aneurysm enlargement > 0.5 cm over the follow-up period.Transarterial embolization was technically successful in 84% of procedures with a complication rate of 2%. Most interventions were coil-based (72%), while a small number relied solely on liquid embolic agents (14%). Absence of a persisting endoleak in the earliest follow-up could be demonstrated in 75.6% of cases, whereas the absence rate for endoleak recurrence was substantially lower (46.3%). No aneurysm enlargement > 0.5 cm during follow-up was ascertained after 73.2% of interventions.Transarterial embolization represents a safe treatment for type II endoleaks after EVAR. While embolization was moderately effective in preventing further expansion of aneurysms due to endoleak recurrence, most procedures were successful in permanently eliminating the targeted feeder vessels. · Transarterial embolization of type II endoleaks has a high technical success rate.. · The emergence of new feeder vessels may necessitate multiple procedures over time.. · Patient risk profiles did not factor into the clinical outcome.. · Krompaß K, Grunz JP, Augustin AM et al. Technical and clinical success analysis of transarterial embolization therapy in type II endoleaks following endovascular aortic repair. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; DOI 10.1055/a-2384-4601.

Transarterial Coil Embolization for Type II Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR)

Background Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has evolved into treatment of choice for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Type II endoleaks, although frequently benign, can lead to sac enlargement and rupture. Management of these endoleaks by endovascular means can be quite challenging and may require complex techniques and assistance of interventional radiologists, not always available in all vascular units. This is a single-center study of management of type II endoleaks with transarterial coil embolization performed by vascular surgeons and with minimum requirements regarding the necessary equipment. Methods From 2017 to 2022, 13 patients with type II endoleak were treated. Local anaesthesia and transfemoral or transbrachial approach was used. The superficial mesenteric artery (SMA) was catheterized and through the Riolan arch, coiling of the inferior mesenteric artery and/or the sac aneurysm was performed. Results The mean time period between the primary EVAR procedure and the transarterial intervention for the endoleak was 3.9 years. Primary technical success was achieved in 11 (84.6%) patients, while secondary technical success was 12 (92.3%). In the mean follow-up period, which was 2.6 years, the endoleak was treated successfully in 11 (84.6%) patients.  Conclusions Transarterial coil embolization of type II endoleaks is a minimal low-cost procedure, with small percentage of complications, high technical and treatment success rates. It could be considered as a first-line treatment of unresolvable type II endoleaks, minimizing the need for open repair.

Understanding Type II Endoleak: A Harmless Imaging Finding or a Silent Threat?

Type II endoleak (T2EL) represents a challenging clinical entity following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Although several studies have suggested that T2ELs are related to an increased risk of aneurysm sac growth and subsequent rupture, the exact role that T2ELs play in long-term outcomes remains debatable. Understanding the pathophysiology, diagnostic modalities, and management options of T2ELs is important for patients' safety and proper resource utilization. While conservative management may be suitable for asymptomatic patients with a stable aneurysm size, interventional approaches, including transarterial embolization, direct sac puncture embolization and open conversion have been described for patients with persistent T2EL associated with sac expansion. However, more research is needed to better determine the clinical benefit of such interventions. A thorough evaluation of all endoleak types before T2EL treatment would be reasonable for patients with T2ELs associated with sac expansion. Further studies are needed to refine treatment strategies aimed at minimizing T2EL-related complications. Collaborative efforts among vascular specialists, radiologists, and researchers are of paramount importance to address this ongoing clinical challenge.

Successful open surgical treatment for persistent type II endoleak following thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a case report

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of type II endoleaks after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm has gradually gained increasing attention. We present a case of a patient with an expanding aneurysm after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for a type II endoleak, in which successful direct ligations of the intercostal artery were performed using a sac incision without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) or graft replacement.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 62-year-old male patient, previously treated with TEVAR for a descending thoracic aortic aneurysm, presented with ongoing chest discomfort. Based on the diagnosis of a growing aneurysm and type II endoleak, the patient was prepared for CPB and aortic cross-clamping, as a precautions against the possibility of a type I endoleak. A longitudinal opening of the thoracic aortic aneurysm sac was performed following left thoracotomy. Visual confirmation identified the T5 level intercostal artery as the source of the endoleak, and after confirming the absence of a type I endoleak, multiple ligations were applied to the intercostal artery. Follow-up computed tomography confirmed the absence of endoleaks or sac growth.

CONCLUSION

In a case involving TEVAR for a thoracic aortic aneurysm, open suture ligations were used to treat type II endoleaks without having to resort to CPB, resulting in successful outcomes.

Direct sac puncture versus transarterial embolization of type II endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Comparison of outcomes

PURPOSE

Type 2 endoleak (T2EL) is the most common type of endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), and increases the risk of aneurysm sac rupture if it persists beyond 6 months. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of direct sac puncture versus transarterial embolization of T2ELs.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 42 consecutive T2EL embolization procedures, 19 by DSP and 23 by transarterial technique, between January 2015 and December 2020. Primary outcome was aneurysm sac stability and resolution of endoleak at follow-up imaging. Adverse events (AE) were classified based on the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) practice guidelines.

RESULTS

Technical success was 94.7% (18/19) in the DSP group and 86.9% (20/23) in the transarterial group (p = 0.32 (-0.77-0.25)). Treatment efficacy was evaluated in 16 patients in the DSP group and 18 patients in the transarterial group who had follow-up imaging ≥6 months after embolization. Mean imaging follow-up was 17.1 ± 11.2 (range, 6-41) months in the DSP group and 26.5 ± 15.4 (range, 6-48) months in the transarterial group (p = 0.06, -19.24-0.37). Treatment efficacy was 75% (12/16) in the DSP group and 33.3% (6/18) in the transarterial group (p = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.09-0.97). There was no procedure-related mortality. Moderate-severe AE occurred in 15.7% (3/19) in the DSP group and 8.7% (2/23) in the transarterial group (p = 0.44, -0.12-0.26).

CONCLUSION

In this study, DSP embolization of T2EL was equally safe and more effective than transarterial embolization in achieving aneurysm sac stability and resolution of endoleak.

Treatment strategies for endoleak after endovascular repair of the abdominal aortic aneurysm: A single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the most frequently used treatment for aneurysm in abdominal aorta. The endoleak after EVAR causes the aneurysm sac to remain enlarged and risk for rupture.

AIMS

The purpose of the study was to assess the efficacy of strategies and techniques for endoleak treatment.

METHODS

This study was a single center retrospective study of 30 patients who had kinds of endoleak. The 30 patients were from a cohort of 597 patients who received EVAR from the Secondary Xiangya Hospital, Central South University between Jan 2014 to Dec 2021, what is follow-up well and diagnosed as endoleak. Data included basic clinical information, aspects of the endoleak treatment techniques, and follow-up findings.

RESULTS

The 30 patients with endoleak were diagnosed by computed tomography angiography or digital subtraction angiography. Age is 69 ± 7.9 yrs. 26 patients are male with only 4 female patients. Immediate endoleak after EVAR is 46.7%and delayed endoleak is 53.3%. The classification of endoleak is type Ⅰ:76.6%; type Ⅱ 26.7%; type Ⅲ:6.7%; type Ⅳ:6.7%; type Ⅴ:13.3%. Different treatment of endoleak includes: screening, endovascular re-intervention and open surgery. There are 3 patients (10.0%) underwent emergency EVAR due to their rupture condition of aneurysm. All the endoleak patients' CTA image characteristics has been reviewed. The follow-up rate is 93.3%. There are 6 patients (21.4%) died during follow-up. No aneurysm sac rupture death has been recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoleak after EVAR is the most frequent complication that directly affects survival and re-intervention rates. Our findings suggested that different treatment strategies based on the individual patient's situation is important for their endoleak treating result.

Incidence and Fate of Refractory Type II Endoleak after EVAR: A Retrospective Experience of Two High-Volume Italian Centers

Introduction: The aim of the present study is to report the outcome of patients presenting an isolated type II endoleak (TIIEL) requiring reintervention and to identify clinical and anatomical characteristics potentially implicated in refractory TIIEL occurrence and fate. Materials and Methods: A multicenter retrospective study on TIIEL requiring reintervention was conducted between January 2003 and December 2020. Demographic and clinical characteristics, procedural technical aspects, reinterventions, and outcomes were recorded. TIIEL determining sac expansion greater than 10 mm underwent a further endovascular procedure aiming to exclude aneurismal sac. Redo endovascular procedures were performed via endoleak nidus direct embolization and/or aortic side branches occlusion. TIIELs responsible for persisting aneurysmal sac perfusion 6 months after redo endovascular procedures were classified as “refractory” and submitted to open conversion. Results: A total of 102 TIIEL requiring reintervention were included in the final analysis. Eighty-eight (86.27%) patients were male, the mean age was 77.32 ± 8.08 years, and in 72.55% of cases the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) class was ≥3. The mean aortic diameter was 64.7 ± 14.02 mm, half of treated patients had a patent inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), and 44.11% ≥ 3 couples of patent lumbar arteries (LA). In 49 cases (48.03%) standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedure was completed without adjunctive maneuvers. All enrolled patients were initially submitted to a further endovascular procedure once TIIEL requiring reintervention was diagnosed; 57 patients underwent LAs or IMA embolization (55.87%), 42 transarterial aneurismal sac embolization (41.17%), and three (2.96%) laparoscopic ostial ligations of the inferior mesenteric artery. During a mean follow-up of 15.22 ± 7.57 months (7−48), a redo endovascular approach was able to ensure complete sac exclusion in 52 cases, while 50 patients presented a still evident refractory TIIEL and therefore a surgical conversion or semiconversion was conducted. At the univariate analysis refractory TIIEL patients were significantly different from those who did not develop the complication in terms of preoperative clinical, morphological characteristics, and initial EVAR procedures: coronary artery disease occurrence (p = 0.005, OR: 3.18, CI95%: 1.3−7.2); preoperative abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac diameter (p = 0.0055); IMA patency (p = 0.016, OR: 2.64, CI95%: 1.18−5.90); three or more patent LAs; isolated standard EVAR without adjunctive procedures (p > 0.0001; OR: 9.48, CI95%: 3.84−23.4). Conclusions: Our experience seems to demonstrate that it is reasonable to try to preoperatively identify those patients who will develop a refractory TIIEL after EVAR and those with a TIIEL requiring reintervention for whom a simple endovascular redo will not be enough, needing surgical conversion.

[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.