Embolization of type II endoleaks fed by the inferior mesenteric artery: using the superior mesenteric artery approach

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.

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.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Outcome of Treatment for Type II Endoleak Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy and need for secondary interventions for type II endoleaks following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain controversial. This systematic review aimed at investigating the clinical outcomes of different type II endoleak treatments in patients with a persistent type II endoleak after EVAR.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Medline via Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar.

REVIEW METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. Outcomes of interest were technical and clinical success, change in sac diameter, complications, need for additional interventions, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture, and (AAA related) mortality. Meta-analyses were performed with random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 59 studies were included, with a cumulative cohort of 1073 patients with persistent type II endoleak. Peri-operative complications following treatment of type II endoleaks occurred in 3.8% of patients (95% CI 2.7-5.2%), and AAA related mortality was 1.8% (95% CI 1.1-2.7%). Overall technical success was 87.9% (95% CI 83.1-92.1%), while clinical success was 68.4% (95% CI 61.2-75.1%). Among studies detailing sac dynamics, decrease or stable sac, with or without resolution, was achieved in 78.4% (95% CI 70.2-85.6%). Changes in sac diameter following type II endoleak treatment were documented in 157 patients to at least 24 months. Within this group an actual decrease in sac diameter was reported in only 27 of 40 patients.

CONCLUSION

There is little evidence supporting the efficacy of secondary intervention for type II endoleaks after EVAR. Although generally safe, the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of type II endoleak treatment leads to difficulty in assessing its merits.

Late Sac Behavior after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Sac behavior after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is considered as a surrogate for the risk of late rupture. The purpose of the study is to assess the sac behavior of AAAs after EVAR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Late sac enlargement (LSE) (≥5 mm) and late sac shrinkage (LSS) (≥5 mm) were analyzed in 589 consecutive patients who were registered at 14 national centers in Japan. The proportions of patients who had LSE at 1, 3 and 5 years were 2.6% ± 0.7%, 10.0% ± 1.6% and 19.0% ± 2.9%. The proportions of patients who had LSS at 1, 3 and 5 years were 50.1% ± 0.7%, 59.2% ± 2.3% and 61.7% ± 2.7%. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified two variables as a risk factor for LSE; persistent endoleak (Odds ratio 9.56 (4.84-19.49), P <0.001) and low platelet count (Odds ratio 0.92 (0.86-0.99), P = 0.0224). The leading cause of endoleak in patients with LSE was type II.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of LSE is not negligible over 5 year period. Patients with persistent endoleak and/or low platelet count should carefully be observed for LSE.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN-CTR (UMIN000008345).

Magnetic Resonance Imaging with a Weak Albumin Binding Contrast Agent can Reveal Additional Endoleaks in Patients with an Enlarging Aneurysm after EVAR

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND

To examine the additional diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after administration of a weak albumin binding contrast agent in post-endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) patients with aneurysm growth with no or uncertain endoleak after computed tomography angiography (CTA).

METHODS

This was a prospective diagnostic cross sectional study carried out between April 2011 and August 2013. MRI was performed in all patients with aneurysm growth≥5 mm after EVAR implantation and no or uncertain endoleak on CTA, or the inability, on CTA, to identify the source of a visible endoleak. All MRI scans were performed on a 1.5 T clinical MRI scanner after administration of a weak albumin binding contrast agent. The presence of endoleaks was assessed by visually comparing pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted images with fat suppression. Post-contrast images were acquired 5 and 15 minutes after contrast administration.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (26 men; 90%) with a median age of 74 years (interquartile range [IQR] 67-76) were included. The median interval between EVAR and MRI was 39 months (IQR 20-50). The median increase in maximum aneurysm diameter during total follow up after EVAR was 11 mm (IQR 6-17). At CTA, 16 patients (55%) had no detectable endoleak, five patients (17%) had suspected but uncertain endoleak, and eight patients had a definite endoleak (28%). On the post-contrast MRI images, endoleak was observed in 24 patients (83%). In all patients with uncertain endoleak on CTA, endoleak was detected with MRI. For type II endoleaks, feeding vessels were detected in 22/23 patients (96%) and these were all, except one, lumbar arteries.

CONCLUSION

In patients with enlarging aneurysms of unknown origin after EVAR, MRI with a weak albumin binding contrast agent has additional value for both the detection and determination of the origin of the endoleak.

Type 2 Endoleaks Post-EVAR: Current Evidence for Rupture Risk, Intervention and Outcomes of Treatment

Type 2 endoleaks (EL2) are the most commonly encountered endoleaks following EVAR. Despite two decades of experience, there remains considerable variation in the management of EL2 with controversies ranging from if to treat, when to treat and how to treat. Here, we summarise the available evidence, describe the treatment techniques available and offer guidelines for management.

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.

AAA stent-grafts: past problems and future prospects

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has quickly gained popularity for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair during the last two decades. The improvement of available EVAR devices is critical for the advancement of patient care in vascular surgery. Problems are still associated with the grafts, many of which can necessitate the conversion of the patient to open repair, or even result in rupture of the aneurysm. This review attempts to address these problems, by highlighting why they occur and what the failings of the currently available stent grafts are, respectively. In addition, the review gives critical appraisal as to the novel methods required for dealing with these problems and identifies the new generation of stent grafts that are being or need to be designed and constructed in order to overcome the issues that are associated with the existing first- and second-generation devices.

Laparoscopic surgery in the management of complex aortic disease: techniques and lessons learned

Laparoscopic vascular surgery must be assessed in the context of both open and endovascular interventions. The development of improved laparoscopic equipment and endoscopic techniques makes performance of laparoscopy easier, but endovascular interventions still hold wide appeal because they are minimally invasive and are easier to master by vascular surgeons. Despite decreased morbidity and recovery time, endovascular interventions have inferior durability and higher reintervention rates when compared with open aortoiliac interventions. In particular, after endovascular aneurysm repair, patients need lifelong surveillance because there is potential for delayed endoleaks, aortic neck dilatation, graft migration, and ongoing risk of aneurysmal rupture. These limitations of endovascular therapy are the impetus behind the pursuit of other minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoscopy, in vascular surgery. Currently, two evolving laparoscopic approaches are available for abdominal vascular surgery: total laparoscopic aortic surgery and hybrid techniques that combine laparoscopy with endovascular techniques to treat failing endografts.

Type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: effectiveness of embolization

The purpose of this study was to report our experience in treating type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Two hundred eighteen patients underwent EVAR with a Zenith stent-graft from January 2000 to December 2005. During a follow-up period of 4.5 + or - 2.3 years, solely type II endoleak was detected in 47 patients (22%), and 14 of them underwent secondary interventions to correct this condition. Ten patients had transarterial embolization, and four patients had translumbar/transabdominal embolization. The embolization materials used were coils, thrombin, gelatin, Onyx (ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer), and glue. Disappearance of the endoleak without enlargement of the aneurysm sac after the first secondary intervention was achieved in only five of these patients (5/13). One patient without surveillance imaging was excluded from analyses of clinical success. After additional interventions in four patients and the spontaneous disappearance of type II endoleak in two patients, overall clinical success was achieved in eight patients (8/12). One patient did not have surveillance imaging after the second secondary intervention. Clinical success after the first secondary intervention was achieved in two patients (2/9) in the transarterial embolization group and three patients (3/4) in the translumbar embolization group. The results of secondary interventions for type II endoleak are unsatisfactory. Although the small number of patients included in this study prevents reliable comparisons between groups, the results seem to favor direct translumbar embolization in comparison to transarterial embolization.

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

The operative mortality following conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair has not fallen significantly over the past two decades. Since its inception in 1991, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has provided an alternative to open AAA repair and perhaps an opportunity to improve operative mortality. Two recent large randomised trials have demonstrated the short and medium term benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair, although data on the long term efficacy of the technique are still lacking. This review aimed at providing an overview of EVAR and a discussion of the potential benefits and current limitations of the technique.

Influence of type II endoleak volume on aneurysm wall pressure and distribution in an experimental model

OBJECTIVE(S)

We have previously shown that type II endoleak size is a predictor of aneurysm growth after aortic endografting. To better understand this observation, we investigated the influence of endoleak size on pressure transmitted to the aneurysm wall and its distribution within the aneurysm sac.

METHODS

In an ex vivo model, an artificial aneurysm sac was incorporated within a mock circulation comprised of rubber tubing and a pulsatile pump. Three strain-gauge pressure transducers were placed in the aneurysm wall at different locations, including the site of maximum aneurysm diameter. The aneurysm was filled with either human aneurysm thrombus or dough that mimicked thrombus and simulated type II endoleaks of varying volumes (1 to 10 mL) were created. Aneurysm wall pressure (AWP) measurements were recorded at mean arterial pressures (MAPs) of 60, 80, and 100 mm Hg. Correlation coefficients ( r ) and analysis of variance were used to assess the relationship between endoleak volume and AWP.

RESULTS

Increasing endoleak volume '3 cm 3 resulted in proportionally increased AWP at all levels of MAP and at all sites, with highest pressures recorded at the site of the maximum aneurysm diameter (r = 0.83 when MAP = 100 mm Hg; r = 0.85 when MAP = 80 mm Hg; r = 0.88 when MAP = 60 mm Hg; P < .001). AWP plateaued when the endoleak volume was >3 cm 3 . Pressure distribution within the sac was not uniform. Although the difference was within +/-10%, statistically significant higher AWPs were observed at the site of maximum aneurysm diameter (P <.001). AWP also correlated with MAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing type II endoleak volume results in proportionally higher AWP, which is greatest at the site of maximum aneurysm diameter. This study confirms the clinical observation that type II endoleak volume and MAP may be important predictors of aneurysm expansion.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our experimental model of a type II endoleak revealed that endoleak size is a significant factor that influences the magnitude of pressure transmission into the aneurysm wall. Increasing volume of the endoleak nidus was associated with proportionally higher aneurysm sac pressures. This mechanism may, in fact, account for the increased risk of aneurysm expansion observed in our clinical experience, thereby suggesting the need for more aggressive surveillance and possibly earlier intervention for patients with larger endoleaks.

Frequency and Outcome of Re-interventions after Endovascular Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Prospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

To describe frequency, type, and outcome of re-intervention after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

Between September 1996 and December 2003, 308 patients were treated, with data collected prospectively. No patient was lost to follow up, but two were excluded (one primary conversion, and one post-operative death). Vanguard, Talent, Excluder, Zenith, and Quantum devices were used. Follow up required a CT scan before discharge. Initially, a CT scan was done at each follow up. Subsequently, we used duplex ultrasound and abdominal X-ray, with CT scan used selectively.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 36+/-22 months. Re-interventions were required in 47 (15%) patients, 31 (66%) elective and 16 (34%) emergency cases. In 32 patients, the primary re-intervention was successful; in 15 patients an additional 13 secondary and four tertiary re-interventions were required. A total of 72 adjunctive manoeuvres were performed: 49 endovascular (68%) and 23 open (32%). The success of endovascular re-interventions was 80%. The success of open re-interventions was 96%. Open conversions were required in nine patients (3%). There was no mortality.

CONCLUSION

EVAR was associated with a low burden of re-interventions, with only 15% patients requiring re-intervention. Our long-term follow up, without regular CT, was simple and effective.

Predicting aneurysm enlargement in patients with persistent type II endoleaks

OBJECTIVE

The clinical significance of type II endoleaks is not well understood. Some evidence, however, indicates that some type II endoleaks might result in aneurysm enlargement and rupture. To identify factors that might contribute to aneurysm expansion, we analyzed the influence of several variables on aneurysm growth in patients with persistent type II endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

In a series of 348 EVARs performed during a 10-year period, 32 patients (9.2%) developed type II endoleaks that persisted for more than 6 months. Variables analyzed included those defined by the reporting standards for EVAR (SVS/AAVS) as well as other endoleak characteristics. Univariate, receiver operating characteristic curve, and Cox regression analyses were used to determine the association between variables and aneurysm enlargement.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 26.5 months (range, 6-88 months). Thirteen patients (41%) had aneurysm enlargement by 5 mm or more (median increase in diameter, 10 mm), whereas 19 (59%) had stable or shrinking aneurysm diameter. Univariate and Cox regression analyses identified the maximum diameter of the endoleak cavity, ie, the size of the nidus as defined on contrast computed tomography scan, as a significant predictor for aneurysm enlargement (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.19; P =.001). The median size of the nidus was 23 mm (range, 13-40 mm) in patients with aneurysm enlargement and 8 mm (range, 5-25 mm) in those without expansion (Mann-Whitney U test, P <.001). Moreover, receiver operating characteristic curve and Cox regression analyses showed that a maximum nidus diameter greater than 15 mm was particularly associated with an increased risk of aneurysm enlargement (relative risk, 11.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-85.8; P =.02). Other risk factors including gender, smoking history, hypertension, need of anticoagulation, aneurysm diameter, type of endograft used, and number or type of collateral vessels were not significant predictors of aneurysm enlargement.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with persistent type II endoleaks after EVAR, the maximum diameter of the endoleak cavity or nidus is an important predictor of aneurysm growth and might indicate the need for more aggressive surveillance as well as earlier treatment.

Treatment of Type II Endoleaks after Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Translumbar Puncture and Injection of Thrombin into the Aneurysm Sac

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to report our experience in the use of a new technique for the treatment of type II endoleaks which appear after the endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In three patients with secondary type II endoleaks, we performed a translumbar puncture, introducing a 22-Gauge needle into the aneurysm sac under CT guidance. Once intrasac pressure had been registered, 1000U (2 ml) of human thrombin were slowly injected into the sac.

RESULTS

Complete sealing of the endoleak was achieved in all three patients, confirmed by the lack of contrast filling of the sac in the CT scans performed 5 min and 24 h after the procedure. Initial intrasac pressure was equal to systolic arterial pressure in the three patients. After the procedure, the pressure decreased by 30-40 mmHg. There were no complications during the procedure, which lasted 45-90 min. No endoleak recurrence has been observed in any of the three cases 6 months later.

CONCLUSIONS

We present an alternative method of treating type II endoleaks, which could become the treatment of choice if and when a wider experience confirms our initial good results.

Is a Type II Endoleak after EVAR a Harbinger of Risk? Causes and Outcome of Open Conversion and Aneurysm Rupture during Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

There is still debate whether type II endoleaks represent a risk for the patient after EVAR. Treatment policies vary from fairly conservative to active intervention. In this analysis risk factors for type II endoleak and adverse events during follow-up were assessed. In addition, risk factors and causes for conversion to open repair and for rupture post-EVAR were studied.

METHODS

The data of 3595 patients, who underwent operation between 1996 and 2002 in 114 European institutions that collaborated in the EUROSTAR Registry, were assessed. To accurately assess the influence of type II endoleaks patients with type I, III and combined endoleaks were excluded from the present study cohort.

RESULTS

A combined adverse outcome event consisting of aneurysmal growth, transfemoral reintervention, and transabdominal secondary procedures (including laparoscopic branch vessel clipping) occurred in 55% in patients with type II endoleak at 3 years, compared to 15% in patients without any endoleak (p<0.0001). Conversion to open repair or post-EVAR rupture was not significantly associated with type II endoleaks. An independent association of device migration and expansion of the aneurysm with late conversion was observed. The cumulative incidence of aneurysm rupture at 3 years of follow-up was 1.2% for an annual rate of 0.4%. Variables that significantly and independently correlated with rupture were size of the aneurysm at preoperative measurement and device migration during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Endoleak type II may not be harmless as it was more frequently associated with enlargement of the aneurysm and reinterventions. Large aneurysms and migration of the device were the main risk factors for rupture. The clinical implications of these findings may involve more frequent surveillance visits for patients with type II endoleak. Aneurysm expansion is a clear indication for reintervention. Patients with large aneurysms, 65 mm or larger, may also benefit from a more comprehensive surveillance schedule.

Type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a conservative approach with selective intervention is safe and cost-effective

OBJECTIVES

The conservative versus therapeutic approach to type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) has been controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of the conservative approach of embolizing type II endoleak only when persistent for more than 6 months and associated with aneurysm sac growth of 5 mm or more.

METHODS

Data for 486 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR were analyzed for incidence and outcome of type II endoleaks. Spiral computed tomography (CT) scans were reviewed, and patient outcome was evaluated at either office visit or telephone contact. Patients with new or late-appearing type II endoleak were evaluated with spiral CT at 6-month intervals to evaluate both persistence of the endoleak and size of the aneurysm sac. Persistent (>or=6 months) type II endoleak and aneurysm sac growth of 5 mm or greater were treated with either translumbar glue or coil embolization of the lumbar source, or transarterial coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery.

RESULTS

Type II endoleaks were detected in 90 (18.5%) patients. With a mean follow-up of 21.7 +/- 16 months, only 35 (7.2%) patients had type II endoleak that persisted for 6 months or longer. Aneurysm sac enlargement was noted in 5 patients, representing 1% of the total series. All 5 patients underwent successful translumbar sac embolization (n = 4) or transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization (n = 4) at a mean follow-up of 18.2 +/- 8.0 months, with no recurrence or aneurysm sac growth. No patient with treated or untreated type II endoleak has had rupture of the aneurysm. The mean global cost for treatment of persistent type II endoleak associated with aneurysm sac growth was US dollars 6695.50 (hospital cost plus physician reimbursement). Treatment in the 30 patients with persistent type II endoleak but no aneurysm sac growth would have represented an additional cost of US dollars 200000 or more. The presence or absence of a type II endoleak did not affect survival (78% vs 73%) at 48 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective intervention to treat type II endoleak that persists for 6 months and is associated with aneurysm enlargement seems to be both safe and cost-effective. Longer follow-up will determine whether this conservative approach to management of type II endoleak is the standard of care.

Technique and results of transfemoral superselective coil embolization of type II lumbar endoleak

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to describe the technique of transfemoral superselective coil embolization of type II endoleak and its influence on abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter.

METHODS

Over 23 months, 104 aortic stent grafts were deployed to exclude abdominal aortic aneurysms, at an academic medical center. Increase in aneurysm diameter and perigraft findings on contrast material-enhanced computed tomography scans prompted arteriography. Procedures were performed solely by vascular surgeons in a surgical angiography suite. In 7 patients aneurysm access was via the iliolumbar branches of the internal iliac artery, and in 1 patient aneurysm access was via the inferior mesenteric artery through the arc of Riolan from the superior mesenteric artery. Coaxial catheters were placed to gain access to the aneurysm (8F to 5F to 3F, or 5F to 3F). A 3F Tracker18 was the most distal catheter through which an assortment of 0.018 microcoils were deployed within the aneurysm, and the origin of the feeding vessels when possible.

RESULTS

Aneurysm diameter increased 0.48 +/- 0.2 cm over 10.8 +/- 5 months before superselective coil embolization. In 6 of 8 patients superselective coil embolization embolization resulted in a mean decrease in aneurysm diameter of 1.3 +/- 1.2 cm over 9 +/- 3.2 months. Failure was presumed due to inability to reach the aneurysm sac in 1 patient and was associated with oral anticoagulation in 1 other patient.

CONCLUSION

Proper identification of the source of type II endoleak and its complete occlusion, combined with aneurysm sac coiling, may result in prompt decrease in aneurysm size.

Modeling endoleaks and collateral reperfusion following endovascular AAA exclusion

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect on intrasac pressure of stent-graft deployment within a life-size silicone rubber model of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) maintained under physiological conditions of pressure and flow.

METHODS

A commercial bifurcated device with the polyester fabric preclotted with gelatin was deployed in the AAA model. A pump system generated physiological flow. Mean and pulse aortic and intrasac pressures were measured simultaneously using pressure transducers. To simulate a type I endoleak, plastic tubing was placed between the aortic wall and the stent-graft at the proximal anchoring site. Type II endoleak was simulated by means of side branches with set inflow and outflow pressures and perfusion rates. Type IV endoleak was replicated by removal of gelatin from the graft fabric.

RESULTS

With no endoleak, the coated graft reduced the mean and pulse sac pressures to negligible values. When a type I endoleak was present, mean sac pressure reached a value similar to mean aortic pressure. When net flow through the sac due to a type II endoleak was present, mean sac pressure was a function of the inlet pressure, while pulse pressure in the sac was dependent on both inlet and outlet pressures. As perfusion rates increased, both mean and pulse sac pressures decreased. When there was no outflow, mean sac pressure was similar to mean aortic pressure. In the presence of both type I and type II endoleaks, mean sac pressure reached mean aortic pressure when the net perfusion rate was low.

CONCLUSIONS

In vitro studies are useful in gaining an understanding of the impact of different types of endoleaks, in isolation and in combination, on intrasac pressure after aortic stent-graft deployment.

Aortoenteric fistula due to endoleak coil embolization after endovascular AAA repair

PURPOSE

To report a late complication associated with embolization coils used to treat an endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

CASE REPORT

A 79-year-old man with a 5.8-cm AAA underwent endovascular repair with an Ancure graft in 1997. A persistent type I endoleak was identified on serial postoperative computed tomographic scans. Three transarterial coil embolization procedures were performed to treat an endoleak from the proximal and right distal attachment sites with outflow by the inferior mesenteric and lumbar arteries. Coil embolization was ultimately successful in sealing the endoleak, and the AAA decreased in size. Four years later, the patient developed an aortoenteric fistula due to erosion of the metallic embolization coils into the duodenum. The endograft was explanted and an extra-anatomical bypass inserted.

CONCLUSIONS

Coil embolization to treat endoleaks can, on rare occasions, be the cause of aortoenteric fistula. Lifelong follow-up of stent-graft patients is required.

Controversies in the management of type II "branch" endoleaks following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Successful endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is often defined as complete exclusion of blood flow within the aneurysm sac. Perigraft flow, also known as endoleak, is the most common complication following EVAR. Attachment site related endoleaks (type I) are generally considered to warrant some form of intervention due to the belief that they represent a risk for future rupture. Management of type II endoleaks, also known as branch or collateral endoleaks, is more controversial. Some advocate a policy of watchful-waiting whereas others treat all type II endoleaks as soon as they are discovered. The following review explores the controversies pertaining to the management, diagnosis and surveillance imaging, and treatment of type II endoleaks.

Type II endoleak: transperitoneal sacotomy and ligation of side branch endoleaks responsible for aneurysm sac expansion

PURPOSE

To demonstrate aneurysm sac expansion in the face of a type II endoleak and its treatment with open ligation of multiple side branch endoleaks.

CASE REPORT

An 81-year-old patient had undergone elective endovascular repair of a 6.3-cm infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm in September 1999. Routine spiral computed tomographic angiography at 10 months disclosed a type II endoleak; the aneurysm sac diameter had grown to 7.4 cm. Selective angiography revealed multiple lumbar endoleaks and a patent inferior mesenteric artery. Laparotomy and sacotomy was performed, confirming the presence of pulsatile type II endoleaks, which were ligated successfully. The patient made a full postoperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Type II endoleaks may cause aneurysm expansion. Open repair of multiple type II endoleaks is feasible and may be useful where endovascular or laparoscopic techniques are at high risk of procedural failure, such as multiple endoleak channels.

The incidence and natural history of type I and II endoleak: a 5-year follow-up assessment with color duplex ultrasound scan

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was the demonstration of the value of color duplex ultrasound (CDU) scanning in the detection of type I endoleak (T1EL) and type II endoleak (T2EL), the correlation of Doppler scan waveform pattern to endoleak persistence or seal, and the description of the natural history of endoleak.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective review of 83 patients who underwent periodic CDU scan and computed tomographic (CT) scan surveillance of the endograft and aneurysm sac after insertion of an aortic endograft for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Forty-one patients (49%) with an endoleak at anytime in the follow-up period form the basis of this report.

RESULTS

T1EL was detected in all five patients with CDU and CT scans. T2EL was detected in 36 patients with CDU scan as compared with 18 patients with CT scan. With CT scan, endoleak was not detected when CDU scan showed no endoleak. Conversely, all CT scan--detected endoleaks were found with CDU scanning. The T2EL source artery was identified with CT scan in seven patients, whereas the source was identified in all 36 patients with CDU scan. Endoleak source did not correlate with outcome (seal or persistence). However, a to/fro Doppler scan waveform pattern was associated with spontaneous T2EL seal in seven of 12 patients, and a monophasic or biphasic waveform was associated with endoleak persistence in 14 of 17 patients (P =.023, with chi(2) test). Thirteen of 36 T2ELs underwent spontaneous seal by 6.2 +/- 2.8 months. T2ELs without increasing AAA diameter were observed. Eight patients with persistent T2EL present for more than 12 months did not undergo treatment. However, two patients underwent T2EL obliteration with coils because of AAA sac enlargement. T1EL of the distal attachment site was the initial endoleak identified in five patients, but seven patients harboring T2ELs had subsequent T1ELs develop. For the entire 83 patients, the combined T1EL and T2EL prevalence rate was 20% of patients at a 6-month follow-up period, but this rate increased to 50% after 24 months. The incidence rate of newly detected endoleaks and of spontaneous sealing was 24.4% at 12 months and 12.5% in longer-term follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

CDU scan is effective in the identification of the type of endoleak, the delineation of the vessel involved, and the hemodynamic information not available with any other testing method. Endoleaks have a dynamic natural history characterized by a variable onset with changing branch vessel involvement and spectral flow patterns. Periodic long-term endograft surveillance with CDU scanning is necessary for following existing endoleaks and for detecting new ones. Corroboration of these findings in larger multicenter prospective trials will be needed to determine whether CDU scan analysis of endoleaks would be predictive of long-term success in endovascular AAA repair.

Significance of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: The EUROSTAR experience

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, risk factors, and consequences of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

METHODS

Data on 2463 patients were collected from 87 European centers and recorded in a central database. Preoperative data were compared for patients with collateral retrograde perfusion (type II) endoleak (group A), patients with device-related (type I and III) endoleaks (group B), and patients in whom no endoleak was detected (group C). Only endoleaks observed after the first postoperative month of follow-up were taken into consideration. Regression analysis was performed to investigate statistical relationships between the occurrence and type of endoleak and preoperative patient and morphologic characteristics, operative details, type of device, and experience of the operating team. In addition, postoperative changes in aneurysmal morphology, the need for secondary interventions, conversions to open repair, aneurysmal rupture, and mortality during follow-up were compared between these study groups.

RESULTS

Patients in group A had a higher prevalence of a patent inferior mesenteric artery compared with patients without endoleak. Patients in group B were treated more frequently than patients in group C by an operating team with experience of less than 30 procedures. The mean follow-up period was 15.4 months. Secondary interventions were needed in 13% of the patients. Rupture of the aneurysm during follow-up occurred in 0.52% (1/191) in group A, 3.37% (10/297) in group B, and 0.25% (5/1975) in group C. Life table analysis comparing the three study groups demonstrated a significantly higher rate of rupture in group B than in group C (P =.002). The incidence of conversion to open repair during follow-up was higher in group B than in the other two study groups (P <.01). Death was related to the aneurysm or to endovascular repair of the aneurysm in 7% of patients. Secondary outcome success, defined as absence of rupture and conversion, was significantly higher in group A and C compared with that in group B (P =.006 and P =.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of device-related endoleaks correlated with a higher risk of aneurysmal rupture and conversion compared with patients without type I or III endoleaks. Type II endoleak was not associated more often with these events. Consequently, intervention in type II endoleak should only be performed in case of increase of aneurysm size.

Treatment of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: comparison of transarterial and translumbar techniques

OBJECTIVE

The exact significance of collateral endoleaks is unknown and a topic of great debate. Because of this uncertainty, some physicians choose to watch and wait while others aggressively treat these leaks. The purpose of this investigation was the evaluation of the efficacy of the two techniques used in the treatment of collateral endoleaks that occur after endovascular aneurysm repair.

METHODS

Patients with 33 angiographically proven type 2 endoleaks underwent treatment with either transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization (n = 20) or direct translumbar embolization (n = 13) during an 18-month period. Embolization success was defined as resolution of endoleak on all subsequent computed tomography angiogram results. The likelihood of embolization failure between the two treatments was expressed as a risk ratio and was compared with Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Sixteen of 20 transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolizations (80%) failed with recanalization of the original endoleak cavity over time. A single failure (8%) in the direct translumbar embolization group occurred in a patient in whom a new attachment site leak developed. The remaining 12 translumbar endoleak embolizations (92%) were successful and durable, with a median follow-up period of 254 days. The patients who underwent transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization were significantly more likely to have persistent endoleak than were the patients who underwent treatment with direct translumbar embolization (risk ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.9 to 11.2; P =.0001).

CONCLUSION

The transarterial embolization of inferior mesenteric arteries for the repair of type 2 endoleaks is ineffective and should not be performed. Direct translumbar embolization of the endoleak is effective in the elimination of type 2 leaks and should be the therapy of choice when aggressive endoleak management is indicated.

Colonic necrosis subsequent to catheter-directed thrombin embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery via the superior mesenteric artery: a complication in the management of a type II endoleak

The optimal management of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms remains to be established. In this report, we describe a persistent side-branch, or type II, endoleak 1 year after endograft implantation treated with catheter-directed embolization of the aneurysm sac and the inferior mesenteric artery via the superior mesenteric artery, with embolization agents including thrombin, lipiodol, and gelfoam powder. Shortly after the embolization procedure, colonic necrosis developed in the patient, manifested by peritonitis, which necessitated a partial colectomy. This case underscores the devastating complication of colonic ischemia as a result of catheter-directed embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery in the management of an endoleak.

Intra-aneurysmal pressure after incomplete endovascular exclusion

PURPOSE

An endoleak results from the incomplete endovascular exclusion of an aneurysm. We developed an experimental model to analyze hemodynamic changes within the aneurysm sac in the presence of an endoleak, with and without a simulated open collateral branch.

METHODS

With a latex aneurysm model connected to a pulsatile pump, pressures were measured simultaneously within the system (systemic pressure) and the aneurysm sac (intrasac pressure). The experiments were performed without endoleak (control group) and after creating a 3.5-mm (group 1), 4.5-mm (group 2), and 6-mm (group 3) diameter orifice in the endograft, simulating an endoleak. Pressures were also registered with and without a patent aneurysm side branch.

RESULTS

In each endoleak group, the intrasac diastolic pressure (DP) and mean pressure (MP) were significantly higher than the systemic DP and MP (P =.01, P =.006, and P =.001, respectively), although the pressure curve was damped. The presence of an open side branch significantly reduced the intrasac DP and MP.

CONCLUSION

In this model, intrasac pressures were significantly higher than systemic pressures in the presence of all endoleaks, even the smallest ones. Intrasac pressures higher than systemic pressure may pose a high risk for aneurysm rupture. Although patent side branches significantly reduce these pressures, the aggressive management of an endoleak should be pursued.

Failed AAA endograft exclusion due to type II endoleak: explant analysis

PURPOSE

To report the patient history and analysis of an explanted modular bifurcated endograft that was implanted to exclude an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

CASE REPORT

An 80-year-old man with a 6-cm AAA underwent uneventful endovascular implantation of a bifurcated AneuRx stent-graft. His postprocedural clinical course was uneventful, although persistent contrast enhancement of the aneurysm remained via the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). By 6 months, an endoleak connecting to the lumbar and mesenteric arteries became apparent. Over the ensuing 12 months, the endoleak and aneurysm enlarged; branch artery embolization was attempted in 4 percutaneous procedures. Despite successful IMA occlusion, the aneurysm continued to increase in diameter and volume, necessitating conversion to a conventional bypass at 20 months. Analysis of the explanted specimen revealed an intact endograft with fibrous incorporation of the stent framework at the proximal and distal fixation sites only; no incorporation of the endograft was noted within the aneurysm. The feeding channel for the endoleak was not identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Serial imaging is a vital component of endograft surveillance, and persistent type II endoleaks that cannot be completely embolized endanger the longevity of the aneurysm exclusion. Explant analysis can play an important role in understanding the mechanisms of endograft failure.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture following endoluminal graft deployment: report of a predictable event

PURPOSE

To describe the predictability of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture secondary to a type II endoleak following stent-graft exclusion.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An 81-year-old man with an enlarging AAA underwent endovascular repair using an AneuRx aortic stent-graft, but a type II endoleak fed by an accessory renal artery was detected at postprocedural computed tomography (CT). Surveillance CT scans at 6 and 16 months showed an increase in the aneurysm diameter and endoleak volume, but the patient refused advised treatment to close the leak. He suffered a fatal aneurysm rupture 24 months after endografting. Retrospective analysis of CT data documented progressive aneurysm enlargement that correctly predicted the rupture.

CONCLUSIONS

Type II endoleaks can lead to aneurysm rupture. Three-dimensional (3D) spiral CT angiography offers an opportunity to track endoleak volume and the effect of exposure to systemic pressure on the aneurysm sac.