Inferior vena cava traversal for translumbar endoleak embolization after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Transcaval embolization for type II endoleak after endovascular aortic repair of infrarenal, juxtarenal, and type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine the outcomes of transcaval embolization (TCE) for type II endoleak after infrarenal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/BEVAR).

METHODS

A retrospective single-center cohort study of all consecutive TCE procedures between August 2015 and August 2019 was performed to investigate technical success, in-hospital morbidity, and 30-day mortality as well as clinical success during follow-up. The indication for TCE was an aneurysm sac growth of 5 mm or more owing to a type II endoleak after EVAR for infrarenal or F/BEVAR for juxtarenal and type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.

RESULTS

A total 25 TCE procedures in 24 patients (95.8% male) were included. Technical success was 96.0% (24/25); selective and nonselective TCE were performed in 48% of patients. The in-hospital morbidity and 30-day mortality were 0%. The median follow-up was 23.1 months (interquartile range, 10.9-40.1 months). Freedom from type II endoleak-related reintervention was 84.6% at 12 months. Comparing clinical success after TCE, reintervention was necessary in 16.7% of patients after nonselective and 20% of patients after selective TCE. Regarding TCE after EVAR vs F/BEVAR, reintervention was performed in 12.5% of EVAR and 33.3% of F/BEVAR patients during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

TCE is an acceptable treatment alternative for type II endoleak with aneurysm sac enlargement and can be used after EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms and F/BEVAR for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms and type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Type 2 Endoleak Management

Type 2 endoleaks are the most common endoleak type following endovascular aneurysm repair. The natural history of these endoleaks can vary, with some demonstrating a self-limited or indolent course, while others can contribute to aneurysm sac enlargement and rupture. A variety of embolization techniques, including transarterial catheterization and direct sac puncture techniques, have been developed for the treatment of type 2 endoleaks. In this article, the authors review the indications, techniques, and outcomes of current treatment strategies for type 2 endoleaks.

Transcaval Access to the Abdominal Aorta: indications of Interest to Surgeons and a Comprehensive Literature Review

We performed a review of the literature (until August 01, 2019) on the occasion of the first transcaval approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in our hospital. This review focuses mainly on the indications of this alternative access route to the aorta. It may be useful for vascular surgeons in selected cases, such as the treatment of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair and thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair. We describe historical aspects of transcaval access to the aorta, experimental studies, available case series and outcomes. Finally, we summarize the most significant technical aspects of this little-known access.

Techniques and future perspectives for the prevention and treatment of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

The presence of endoleaks remains one of the main drawbacks of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms leading to the increase of the size of the aneurysmal sac and in most of the cases to repeated interventions. A variety of devices and percutaneous techniques have been developed so far to prevent and treat this phenomenon, including sealing of the aneurysmal sac, endovascular embolisation, and direct sac puncture. The aim of this review is to analyse the indications, the effectiveness, and the future perspectives for the prevention and treatment of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Complications of endovascular aneurysm repair of the thoracic and abdominal aorta: evaluation and management

In recent decades, endovascular aneurysm repair or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become an acceptable alternative to open surgery for the treatment of thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms and other aortic pathologies such as the acute aortic syndromes (e.g., penetrating aortic ulcer, intramural hematoma, dissection). Available data suggest that endovascular repair is associated with lower perioperative 30-day all-cause mortality as well as a significant reduction in perioperative morbidity when compared to open surgery. Additionally, EVAR leads to decreased blood loss, eliminates the need for cross-clamping the aorta and has shorter recovery periods than traditional surgery. It is currently the preferred mode of treatment of thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms in a subset of patients who meet certain anatomic criteria conducive to endovascular repair. The main disadvantage of EVAR procedures is the high rate of post-procedural complications that often require secondary re-intervention. As a result, most authorities recommend lifelong imaging surveillance following repair. Available surveillance modalities include conventional radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance angiography, ultrasonography, nuclear imaging and conventional angiography, with computed tomography currently considered to be the gold standard for surveillance by most experts. Following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, the rate of complications is estimated to range between 16% and 30%. The complication rate is higher following thoracic EVAR (TEVAR) and is estimated to be as high as 38%. Common complications include both those related to the endograft device and systemic complications. Device-related complications include endoleaks, endograft migration or collapse, kinking and/or stenosis of an endograft limb and graft infection. Post-procedural systemic complications include end-organ ischemia, cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events and post-implantation syndrome. Secondary re-interventions are required in approximately 19% to 24% of cases following endovascular abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysm repair respectively. Typically, most secondary reinterventions involve the use of percutaneous techniques such as placement of cuff extension devices, additional endograft components or stents, enhancement of endograft fixation, treatment of certain endoleaks using various embolization techniques and embolic agents and thrombolysis of occluded endograft components. Less commonly, surgical conversion and/or open surgical modification are required. In this article, we provide an overview of the most common complications that may occur following endovascular repair of thoracic and AAAs. We also summarize the current surveillance recommendations for detecting and evaluating these complications and discuss various current secondary re-intervention approaches that may typically be employed for treatment.

Management of Endoleaks

The management of endoleaks remains an inherent challenge to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), particularly as evolving techniques and devices have allowed treatment of increasingly complex aneurysm anatomy. Endovascular techniques are the favored modality for endoleak repair and include techniques to bridge the endoleak defector and embolize the endoleak nidus and inflow/outflow vessels. Conversion to surgical repair remains the definitive option in cases where less invasive methods have failed or are precluded. In this article, the authors review evidence on the indications, approach, and outcomes of current techniques for endoleak management.

Type II endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair

Background

The aim was to assess the risk of rupture, and determine the benefits of intervention for the treatment of type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

Methods

This systematic review was done according to PRISMA guidelines. Outcome data included incidence, spontaneous resolution, sac expansion, interventions, clinical success, and complications including conversion to open repair, and rupture.

Results

Thirty-two non-randomized retrospective studies were included, totalling 21 744 patients who underwent EVAR. There were 1515 type II endoleaks and 393 interventions. Type II endoleak was seen in 10·2 per cent of patients after EVAR; 35·4 per cent resolved spontaneously. Fourteen patients (0·9 per cent) with isolated type II endoleak had ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm; six of these did not have known aneurysm sac expansion. Of 393 interventions for type II endoleak, 28·5 per cent were unsuccessful. Translumbar embolization had a higher clinical success rate than transarterial embolization (81 versus 62·5 per cent respectively; P = 0·024) and fewer recurrent endoleaks were reported (19 versus 35·8 per cent; P = 0·036). Transarterial embolization also had a higher rate of complications (9·2 per cent versus none; P = 0·043).

Conclusion

Aortic aneurysm rupture after EVAR secondary to an isolated type II endoleak is rare (less than 1 per cent), but over a third occur in the absence of sac expansion. Translumbar embolization had a higher success rate with a lower risk of complications.

Quality improvement guidelines for imaging detection and treatment of endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)

Major concerns after aortic aneurysm repair are caused by the presence of endoleaks, which are defined as persistent perigraft flow within the aortic aneurysm sac. Diagnosis of endoleaks can be performed with various imaging modalities, and indications for treatment are based on further subclassifications. Early detection and correct classification of endoleaks are crucial for planning patient management. The vast majority of endoleaks can be treated successfully by interventional means. Guidelines for Imaging Detection and Treatment of endoleaks are described in this article.

Management of Endoleaks following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has emerged as a viable alternative to open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Endoleaks are a complication unique to EVAR and can occur in up to 25% of patients. In this article, the management of endoleaks following EVAR will be discussed.

Iatrogenic Ureteral Injury during Translumbar Embolization of a Type II Endoleak

The persistence of flow within an aneurysm sac remains the so-called Achilles heel of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. The management of type II endoleaks remains controversial, although aneurysm sac expansion is an accepted indication for intervention. The present case describes a patient with a type II endoleak following endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm treated by translumbar embolization. The procedure was complicated by iatrogenic injury to the left ureter and nontarget embolization resulting in acute ureteral obstruction.

Treatment of complications following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an important treatment option for abdominal aortic aneurysms, with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality rates than open surgical aneurysm repair. However, EVAR is associated with several unique complications that are not encountered with surgical repair such as endoleaks, graft migration, and renal artery occlusion. Preservation of the morbidity and mortality advantages of EVAR relies on the successful treatment of these complications by minimally invasive, endovascular approaches. Some of the techniques used to treat EVAR complications include balloon dilation and stenting, deployment of additional stent-graft pieces, coil embolization, and thrombolysis. Although the employment of these endovascular salvage techniques is common, data regarding their intermediate- to long-term efficacy is sparse, and further studies are needed to determine their efficacy in preventing conversion to open aneurysm repair and aneurysm rupture.

Percutaneous transabdominal approach for the treatment of endoleaks after endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and clinical efficacy of percutaneous transabdominal treatment of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair.

Materials and Methods

Between 2000 and 2007, six patients with type I (n = 4) or II (n = 2) endoleaks were treated by the percutaneous transabdominal approach using embolization with N-butyl cyanoacrylate with or without coils. Five patients underwent a single session and one patient had two sessions of embolization. The median time between aneurysm repair and endoleak treatment was 25.5 months (range: 0-84 months). Follow-up CT images were evaluated for changes in the size and shape of the aneurysm sac and presence or resolution of endoleaks. The median follow-up after endoleak treatment was 16.4 months (range: 0-37 months)

Results

Technical success was achieved in all six patients. Clinical success was achieved in four patients with complete resolution of the endoleak confirmed by follow-up CT. Clinical failure was observed in two patients. One eventually underwent surgical conversion, and the other was lost to follow-up. There were no procedure-related complications.

Conclusion

The percutaneous transabdominal approach for the treatment of type I or II endoleaks, after endovascular aneurysm repair, is an alternative method when conventional endovascular methods have failed.

Imaging Techniques for Detection and Management of Endoleaks after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair1

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is evolving into a viable alternative to open surgical repair for many patients with abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms. Endoleak development is a complication of EVAR and represents one of the limitations of this procedure. Endoleaks represent blood flow outside the stent-graft lumen but within the aneurysm sac. Lifelong imaging surveillance of patients after EVAR is critical to detect endoleaks for the patient's benefit and to determine the long-term performance of the stent-graft. Although computed tomographic angiography is the most commonly used examination for imaging surveillance, magnetic resonance angiography, ultrasonography, and digital subtraction angiography all have a role in endoleak detection and management. This review will focus on imaging techniques used for endoleak detection and the role imaging surveillance plays in the overall care of the post-EVAR patient.

Treatment of type II endoleak with a transcatheter transcaval approach: Results at 1-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This study assessed the feasibility and mid-term outcomes in the treatment of type II endoleak using transcatheter transcaval embolization (TTE).

METHODS

During an 8-month period, 12 patients underwent TTE. After direct transcaval puncture of the aneurysm sac, embolization was performed by injecting thrombin and placing coils. Systemic and intrasac pressures were recorded throughout the entire procedure. Computed tomography (CT) scans were performed at 24 hours, 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year after TTE to evaluate endoleaks and changes in sac diameter. Technical success was defined as the feasibility of the procedure; clinical success was defined as no evidence of leaks during the follow-up evaluation.

RESULTS

TTE was feasible in 11 of 12 patients (technical success 92%). The mean systemic pressure was 117 mm Hg. The mean intrasac pressure before embolization was 75 mm Hg (range, 39 to 125 mm Hg), 16.5 mm Hg (range, 7 to 40 mm Hg) in 10 patients after embolization, and it increased in one patient. CT scans at 24 hours showed stable contrast medium inside the sac in 10 patients. Only minor complications were observed during follow-up. At the 1-year follow-up, no recurrence of leaks was noted, and sac diameter was reduced in 10 of 11 patients. As a result, TTE clinical success was obtained in 10 (83%) of 12 patients.

CONCLUSION

TTE appears to be a feasible technique for the complete exclusion of type II endoleaks. Technical and clinical successes are comparable with other treatment strategies, and TTE should be considered an alternative to direct translumbar puncture of the aneurysm sac.

Treatment of type II endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: transcaval approach

The purpose of the note is to describe a new technique for type II endoleak treatment, using an alternative approach through femoral venous access. Three patients who developed type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm were treated with direct transcaval puncture and embolization inside the aneurysm sac. The detailed technique is described. All patients were treated without any complications and discharged 48 hours after the treatment. At 1 month follow-up the computed tomograph scan did not show a recurrence of a type II endoleak. The management of patients with type II endoleak is a controversial issue and different techniques have been proposed. We suggest an alternative technique for type II endoleak treatment. The feasibility and the advantages of this approach can offer new possibilities for the diagnosis as well as for the treatment of this complication.

Translumbar Type II Endoleak Repair Using Angiographic CT

Translumbar embolization of type II endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair has been proved to be effective. One challenge of this approach is the choice of the most suitable image guiding modality. For needle placement, cross-sectional imaging under computed tomographic (CT) guidance is preferable. For embolization, fluoroscopy is the modality of choice for most interventionalists. A new technology can acquire CT-like images by rotating an angiographic, flat-panel detector of a C-arm around the patient. This technology allows a combination of fluoroscopic and CT guidance within the angiographic suite. The authors describe the successful use of a combination of fluoroscopy and angiographic CT in three cases of translumbar type II endoleak embolization.

Translumbar Repair of a Type II Endoleak Associated with an Aorta–to–Left Renal Vein Fistula after Aortic Stent-Graft Placement

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a serious medical condition with significant associated morbidity and mortality. Endograft repair of AAAs is a therapy in evolution, but offers promise as a minimally invasive treatment option. Persistent sac pressurization via endoleaks has limited wider application of stent-grafting technology. The present report describes a case of an AAA with rupture into a retroaortic left renal vein that was treated acutely with aortic stent-graft repair. Continued aneurysm enlargement and a large type II endoleak drained by an arteriovenous fistula were subsequently treated via a translumbar approach.

Combined Laparoscopic and Percutaneous Treatment of a Type II Endoleak Following Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

We describe a novel approach in treating a persistent type II endoleak related to the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and the lower lumbar arteries. The endoleak failed to thrombose following percutaneous IMA coil embolization. We proceeded to one-stage laparoscopic IMA division and intra-sac thrombin injection under direct laparoscopic vision and fluroscopy. A CT scan at 1 and 7 months post-intervention showed no evidence of endoleak and the growth of the aneurysm was arrested. This combined laparoscopic and percutaneous approach may be a useful treatment option in the management of persistent complex type II endoleak. Its durability, however has yet to be defined.

Embolization of Type 2 Endoleaks after Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with Use of Cyanoacrylate with or without Coils

Translumbar embolization was used to treat 11 type 2 endoleaks in nine patients with the liquid embolic agent n-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA). Nine of the embolizations were performed with a combination of stainless-steel coils and NBCAJ and the other two were performed with NBCA alone. There was complete occlusion on initial computed tomographic (CT) angiography in six of nine patients (66%), including the two cases treated with NBCA alone. Persistent endoleak on initial CT angiography occurred in three of nine patients (33%). Two of these patients underwent successful repeated embolization with NBCA. Aneurysm size remained unchanged in four patients (44%), decreased in four patients (44%), and increased in one patient (11%). No complications occurred. Initial results with the use of NBCA for endoleak embolization are encouraging.

Catheter-based treatments of endoleaks

At the present time, patients who have undergone endovascular aneurysm repair require lifelong surveillance. The purpose of this surveillance is threefold. First, has there been any change in the position of the endograft? Secondly, what is the status of the aneurysm sac? Thirdly, is there an endoleak? How the patient is managed depends on the answers to these three questions. Managing patients with endoleaks remains a challenging clinical problem. Decisions on these patients depend on the type of leak and the status of the aneurysm sac. This manuscript will review what is currently known about endoleaks and use this information to develop algorithms of how patients should be treated.

What is the significance of endoleaks and endotension

Endovascular repair has been used over a decade as a treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, and has become a widely accepted treatment method with a low rate of perioperative complications. Endoleak, perigraft blood flow outside endograft but within aneurysmsac, has been intensively studied during the last 10 years of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVR). The natural history of aneurysms with endoleak and the true clinical significance of various types of endoleaks remains unclear. Type I/III endoleak has been found to be associated with aneurysm rupture, while the risk of rupture of aneurysms with type II endoleak and endotension appears very small. In endotension, the aneurysm sac remains pressurized, even if there is no evidence of an endoleak. Currently,it is accepted that type I/III endoleaks should be corrected, preferably by endovascular means, due to the risk of rupture. If endovascular repair is not possible, then open conversion should be considered. The risk of conversion should be weighed against the risk of aneurysm rupture. Treatment of type II endoleaks and endotension is more controversial. In those with aneurysm enlargement,secondary interventions are often performed.