Preoperative embolization of collateral side branches: a valid means to reduce type II endoleaks after endovascular AAA 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.

Preemptive Embolization of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Sac Side Branch Arteries Promotes Early Sac Shrinkage after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair 1

BACKGROUND

The association between the occlusion rate of the side branch arteries branching from the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac and aneurysm sac shrinkage is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preemptive embolization of multiple side branch arteries branching from the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac in early aneurysm sac shrinkage after endovascular aneurysm repair.

METHODS

Patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms, with or without preemptive embolization of multiple side branch arteries, including the inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar arteries, between January 2016 and August 2021, were retrospectively evaluated. Preemptive embolization was introduced at our institution in January 2018 and has been performed in all patients who undergo endovascular aneurysm repair since then. We compared occlusion rates of the side branch arteries, frequency of type 2 endoleaks, changes in aneurysm sac size, percentage of aneurysm sac size decrease, and frequency of reduction in the aneurysm sac diameter by > 5 mm.

RESULTS

The study included 43 patients in the embolization group and 20 in the nonembolization group. Preemptive embolization was successfully performed without any ischemic complications. The total occlusion rate of side branch arteries was significantly higher in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group (70.2% vs. 29.3%, P < 0.05). At 24 months of follow-up, the type 2 endoleak frequency was significantly lower in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group (6.9% vs. 31.6%, P < 0.05). The frequency of reduction in the aneurysm sac diameter by > 5 mm was significantly higher in the embolization group than in the nonembolization group at 24 months (62.1% vs. 31.6% P < 0.05). The optimal cutoff value for the total occlusion rate of the side branch arteries to achieve reduction in the aneurysm sac diameter by > 5 mm at 24 months, after endovascular aneurysm repair, was 66.7% in all patients (area under the curve = 0.634; sensitivity = 62.5%; specificity = 70.8%). These findings suggest that occluding 66.7% or more of the side branch arteries may result in early aneurysmal shrinkage.

CONCLUSIONS

Preemptive embolization of multiple side branch arteries, branching from the abdominal aortic aneurysm sac, may contribute to early aneurysm sac shrinkage; this may serve as a marker for fewer late complications after endovascular aneurysm repair.

Impact of the Patency of Inferior Mesenteric Artery on 7-Year Outcomes After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

The impact of preoperative patent inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) on late outcomes following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the specific influence of IMA patency on 7-year outcomes after EVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 556 EVARs performed for true abdominal aortic aneurysm cases between January 2006 and December 2019 at our institution were reviewed. Endovascular aneurysm repairs performed using a commercially available device with no type I or type III endoleak (EL) during follow-up and with follow-up ≥12 months were included. A total of 336 patients were enrolled in this study. The cohort was divided into the patent IMA group and the occluded IMA group according to preoperative IMA status. The late outcomes, including aneurysm sac enlargement, reintervention, and mortality rates, were compared between both groups using propensity-score-matched data.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 86 patients were included in each group. The median follow-up period was 56 months (interquartile range: 32-94 months). The incidence of type II EL at discharge was 50% in the patent IMA group and 19% in the occluded IMA group (p<0.001). The type II EL from IMA and lumbar arteries was significantly higher in the patent IMA group than in the occluded IMA group (p<0.001 and p=0.002). The rate of freedom from aneurysm sac enlargement with type II EL was significantly higher in the occluded IMA group than in the patent IMA group (94% vs 69% at 7 years; p<0.001). The rate of freedom from reintervention was significantly higher in the occluded IMA group than in the patent IMA group (90% vs 74% at 7 years; p=0.007). Abdominal aortic aneurysm-related death and all-cause mortality did not significantly differ between groups (p=0.32 and p=0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Inferior mesenteric artery patency could affect late reintervention and aneurysm sac enlargement but did not have a significant impact on mortality. Preoperative assessment and embolization of IMA might be an important factor for improvement in late EVAR outcomes.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The preoperative patency of the inferior mesenteric artery was significantly associated with a higher incidence of sac enlargement and reintervention with type II endoleak following endovascular aneurysm repair, even after adjustment for patient background. Preoperative assessment and embolization of inferior mesenteric artery might be an important factor for improvement in late EVAR outcomes.

Impact of Patent Lumbar Arteries on Aneurysm Sac Enlargement with Type II Endoleak after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the impact of the number of patent lumbar arteries (LAs) on sac enlargement after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort single centre registry study. Between January 2006 and December 2019, 336 EVARs were reviewed using a commercially available device excluding type I or type III endoleaks during a follow up of ≥ 12 months. Patients were divided into four groups based on the pre-operative patency of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and high (≥ 4) or low (≤ 3) number of patent LAs: Group 1, patent IMA and high number of patent LAs; Group 2, patent IMA and low number of patent LAs; Group 3, occluded IMA and a high number of patent LAs; Group 4, occluded IMA and low number of patent LAs.

RESULTS

Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 included 124, 104, 45, and 63 patients, respectively. The median follow up duration was 65.1 months. Significant differences in the incidence of overall type II endoleak (T2EL) at discharge between Group 1 and Group 2 (59.7% vs. 36.5%, p < .001) and between Group 3 and Group 4 (33.3% vs. 4.8%, p < .001) were observed. In patients with a pre-operatively patent IMA, the rate of freedom from aneurysm sac enlargement was significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (69.0% vs. 81.7% five years after EVAR, p < .001). In patients with a pre-operatively occluded IMA, the freedom rate from aneurysm sac enlargement was not significantly different between Groups 3 and Group 4 (95.0% vs. 100% five years after EVAR, p = .075).

CONCLUSION

A high number of patent LAs seemed to have a significant role in sac enlargement with T2EL when the IMA was patent pre-operatively, whereas a high number of patent LAs seemed to have limited influence on sac enlargement when the IMA was occluded pre-operatively.

Role of Aggressive Aneurysm Sac Embolization Before Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair in Preventing Type II Endoleak and Sac Expansion

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of aggressive embolization of side branches arising from the aneurysmal sac before endovascular aneurysm repair.

Methods

This retrospective study included 95 patients who underwent endovascular infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair at Tottori University Hospital between October 2016 and January 2021. Of these, 54 underwent standard endovascular aneurysm repair (conventional group), and 41 underwent coiling of the inferior mesenteric and lumbar arteries before undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (embolization group). The occurrence of type II endoleak, change in aneurysmal sac diameter, and reintervention rate due to type II endoleak during follow-up were evaluated.

Results

Compared to the conventional group, the embolization group had a significantly lower incidence of type II endoleak, more frequent aneurysmal sac shrinkage, and lower aneurysmal sac growth related to type II endoleak.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated the effectiveness of aggressive aneurysmal sac embolization before endovascular aneurysm repair to prevent type II endoleak and the consequent long-term aneurysmal sac enlargement.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of pre-emptive embolization of the aneurysm sac side branches and aneurysm sac coil embolization to improve the outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair

Objective

Previous reports have revealed a high incidence of type II endoleak (T2EL) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The incidence of T2EL after EVAR is reduced by pre-emptive embolization of aneurysm sac side branches (ASSB) and aneurysm sac coil embolization (ASCE). This study aimed to investigate whether different preventive interventions for T2EL were correlated with suppression of aneurysm sac expansion and reduction of the re-intervention rate.

Methods

The PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE and Embase databases, and conference proceedings were searched to identify articles on EVAR with or without embolization. The study was developed in line with the Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, and Study design principles and was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We used network meta-analysis based on multivariate random-effects meta-analysis to indirectly compare outcomes of different strategies for embolization during EVAR.

Results

A total of 31 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. The included studies were published between 2001 and 2022 and analyzed a total of 18,542 patients, including 1,882 patients who received prophylactic embolization treatment during EVAR (experimental group) and 16,660 who did not receive prophylactic embolization during EVAR (control group). The effect of pre-emptive embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) (IMA-ASSB) in preventing T2EL was similar (relative risk [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38–2.63) to the effects of non-selective embolization of ASSB (NS-ASSB) and ASCE (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.40–1.96). IMA-ASSB showed a better clinical effect in suppressing the aneurysm sac expansion (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09–2.25 compared with NS-ASSB; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.16–5.56 compared with ASCE) and reducing the re-intervention rate (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08–1.53 compared with NS-ASSB; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19–2.22 compared with ASCE). All prophylactic embolization strategies improved the clinical outcomes of EVAR.

Conclusion

Prophylactic embolization during EVAR effectively prevents T2EL, suppresses the aneurysm sac expansion, and reduces the re-intervention rate. IMA embolization demonstrated benefits in achieving long-term aneurysm sac stability and lowering the risk of secondary surgery. NS-ASSB more effectively reduces the incidence of T2EL, while IMA embolization alone or in combination with ASCE enhances the clinical benefits of EVAR. In addition, as network meta-analysis is still an indirect method based on a refinement of existing data, more studies and evidence are still needed in the future to establish more credible conclusions.

Inferior Mesenteric Artery Associated Type II Endoleaks: Are They Predictable?

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the relationship between inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) diameter and risk of type II endoleak.

Subjects and Methods: A retrospective study design to review all EVARs performed over a 4-year period at a tertiary care center. Out of the total cohort of 400 patients who underwent EVAR, 41 patients (10.3%) developed type II endoleak. The mean IMA ostial diameter for patients with type II endoleak secondary to IMA contributories was 4mm, while the mean IMA diameter for patients with lumbar arteries contributing to the type II endoleak was 3.7mm.

Results: Statistical analysis using a paired t-test did not show a statistically significant difference in the IMA ostial diameter between the two groups.

Conclusion: There is no significant correlation between preprocedural IMA ostium diameter and type II endoleak development and hence, preprocedural IMA embolization is not an appropriate prophylactic management strategy.

Management of Postoperative Complications Following Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a minimally invasive therapeutic approach to manage abdominal aortic pathologies (eg, aneurysm and dissection). EVAR was first introduced in 1991. In 1994, endovascular technique was also applied for thoracic aorta, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). In recent decades, EVAR has become an acceptable first-line treatment with 50% utilization rate across most practices, especially in high-risk patients. The safety profile of EVAR is comparable to the open approach, with superiority in terms of perioperative mortality and morbidity. This article summarizes the most common complications following EVAR/TEVAR and the most current treatment modalities across practices.

Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Prevention of type 2 Endoleak by Intraoperative Aortic Side Branch Coil Embolization

OBJECTIVE

The midterm results of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with aortic side branch coil embolization during EVAR was evaluated.

METHODS

Our center began coil embolization for all patent inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and lumbar artery (LA) with an inner diameter more than 2.0 mm during EVAR since June 2015. When four or more LA were patent, coil embolization for LA with inner diameter 2.0 mm or less was done. EVAR without aortic side branches coil embolization was performed for 59 patients prior to June 2015 (control group) and 79 patients underwent EVAR with coil embolization during EVAR (coil group). The success rate of coil embolization for IMA and LA was evaluated in coil group. The frequency of type 2 endoleak (T2EL), freedom from aneurysm sac expansion (5 mm or more) rate and the rate of the aneurysm sac shrinkage (10 mm or more) were compared between the coil and control groups. Additionally, multiple logistic regression analysis for all patients was conducted to analyze whether IMA patency and the number of patent lumbar artery at the end of EVAR were the risk factors of the aneurysm sac expansion of 5 mm or more.

RESULTS

The success rate of IMA coil embolization was 96.4% and that of LA was 74.5%. Compared to the control group, the frequency of T2EL was significantly lower in coil group at 7 days (1.3% vs. 60.4%, P <0.0001) and at 6 months (2.1% vs 38.2%, P <0.0001) after EVAR. The freedom from aneurysm sac expansion rate was significantly better in the coil group at 5 years (100% in coil group and 65.2% in control group, P = 0.002). The rate of aneurysm sac shrinkage was significantly better in coil group (15.5% vs. 2.0% at 1 year, 42.8% vs. 6.3% at 2 years and 53.4% vs. 17.8% at 3 years, p = 0.0007). The risk of aneurysm sac expansion of 5 mm or more was estimated to be 11 times greater when the IMA was patent, and 4.9 times greater when 3 or more LAs were patent at the end of EVAR.

CONCLUSION

When IMA was occluded and the number of patent LA became 2 or less by aortic side branch coil embolization during EVAR, favorable mid-term results were safely obtained and good long-term result could be expected with EVAR.

Risk Analysis of Aneurysm Sac Enlargement Caused by Type II Endoleak after Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Although the preoperative risk factors associated with the occurrence of type II endoleak (ETII) after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) have gradually become more evident, the preoperative risk factors associated with aneurysm sac enlargement caused by ETII remain unclear. This study aimed to determine the preoperative risk factors associated with aneurysm sac enlargement caused by ETII after EVAR.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study reviewed 519 EVARs performed for true abdominal aortic aneurysm between January 2006 and December 2018 at our institution. EVARs using commercially available bifurcated devices with no type I or III endoleaks during follow-up and with ≥12 months follow-up were included. A total of 320 patients were enrolled in the study. To identify the preoperative risk factors of sac enlargement after EVAR, Cox regression analysis was used to assess preoperative data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 60.8 months. Overall, 135 of 320 patients (42%) had ETII during follow-up, and 47 of 135 patients (35%) developed aneurysm sac enlargement. Multivariate analysis revealed that chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage ≥4 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-10.15; P = 0.001), patent inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) (HR, 17.85; 95% CI, 2.46-129.73; P< 0.001), and number of patent lumbar arteries (LAs) (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.68; P= 0.002) were risk factors of aneurysm sac enlargement caused by ETII.

CONCLUSIONS

CKD stage ≥4, patent IMA, and number of patent LAs were independent risk factors for aneurysm sac enlargement after EVAR. In particular, patent IMA had the highest HR and seemed to have the greatest impact on long-term aneurysm sac enlargement. Hence, taking preoperative measures to address a patent IMA appears to be important in reducing the incidence of sac enlargement.

Predictive Factors and Strategies to Prevent the Development of Type 2 Endoleaks following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Type 2 endoleaks are a potential complication of endovascular aortic repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms. They are caused by vessels that have been excluded from the aorta lumen, but may still fill the aneurysm sac due to collateral filling. Type 2 endoleaks may lead to increased morbidity and need for additional procedures. Being able to identify patients at risk for Type 2 endoleaks and prevent them is important for any physician who is performing endovascular aortic repair.

Predictive Factor of the Possibility for Aortic Side Branches Coil Embolization during Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Objective: Coil embolization of aortic side branches has been additionally performed to prevent type II endoleak during EVAR in our institute. In this study, we evaluated the predictive factors of the possibility for coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and lumbar artery (LA) during EVAR.

Methods: Seventy-four EVAR patients during June 2015 and April 2019 were included in the study. The coil embolization procedural time for one vessel is limited to 10 min. Aortic side branches were selected with 4 Fr Shepherd hook type catheter (Medikit, Tokyo, Japan) and were embolized with Interlock (Boston Scientific, MA, USA) via microcatheter. As predictive factors, internal diameter of aortic side branches and the aortic diameter perpendicular to the origin of LA (aortic diameter) were evaluated.

Results: Coil embolization was tried for 52 patent IMAs and all IMAs except two IMAs with ostial stenosis were successfully coil embolized (96.2%). Totally 190 LAs were patent and coil embolization was tried for 144 LAs. Among 144 LAs, 106 LAs (73.6%) were successfully coil embolized and the diameter was significantly longer (2.30±0.51 mm vs. 2.04±0.41 mm, p=0.007) and aortic dimeter was significantly shorter (30.0±8.1 mm vs. 40.5±11.6 mm, p<0.001) in successfully embolized LAs. Cut off value of successful LA coil embolization was 2.06 mm for internal diameter and 36.1 mm for aortic diameter by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Successful coil embolization rate for LAs with internal diameter longer than 2.0 mm and aortic diameter less than 36.2 mm was 90% (72 among 80 LAs).

Conclusion: Coil embolization during EVAR for IMA was highly successful, if there was no calcified ostial stenosis. LA embolization was feasible especially for LAs with internal diameter ≥2.0 mm and aortic diameter ≤36.1 mm. This information would be useful to select the target vessel for aortic side branches coil embolization during EVAR. (This is a translation of Jpn J Vasc Surg 2019; 28: 389–396.)

Sac Embolization and Side Branch Embolization for Preventing Type II Endoleaks After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Meta-analysis

Purpose:To investigate the efficacy and safety of preoperative side branch embolization or intraoperative sac embolization for preventing type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify studies that evaluated the outcomes of sac embolization vs no embolization or side branch embolization vs no embolization in patients who received EVAR. Among the 904 studies screened, 17 studies with 2084 participants were included in this review. Outcome measures included the type II endoleak rate, the reintervention rate for type II endoleaks, the incidence of types I/III endoleaks, and the rate of complications. Fixed (no heterogeneity) or random effects models were constructed for each outcome; the results are presented as the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The sac embolization group had significantly lower type II endoleak (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p<0.001) and reintervention (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33, p<0.001) rates than the no embolization group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were found for the type I/III endoleak rate (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37, p=0.21) or complication rate (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.70, p=0.77). Compared with no embolization, side branch embolization was also associated with a decrease in type II endoleak (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60, p<0.001) and reinterventions (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27, p<0.001). One severe procedure-related complication (fatal colon ischemia) was reported in the side branch embolization group. Conclusion: Sac embolization and side branch embolization are safe and effective in preventing type II endoleaks. Further randomized trials are needed to directly compare the clinical outcomes of these procedures.

Tight systolic blood pressure control with combination therapy decreases type 2 endoleaks in patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has revolutionized the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) disease. However, the survival advantage is lost in the long term due the occurrence of endoleaks affecting the late rupture of aneurism sac. Few data are available on the role of blood pressure control in affecting the incidence of type 2 endoleaks in patients undergoing EVAR.

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this study was to evaluated whether systolic blood pressure (SBP) control to target 130 mmHg reached after preoperative cardiology consultant might decrease the incidence of type II endoleak(T2E), sac expansion and related aortic reintervention after elective endovascular aneurysm repair(EVAR).

METHODS

We analyzed 386 patients undergoing EVAR between 2008 and 2016. The primary endpoints were T2E, sac expansion and related aortic re-intervention or sac shrinkage during a median follow-up of 24 months [12-48]. The secondary endpoint was every cause of vascular or cardiac morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The SBP value of 130 mmHg at the time of EVAR resulted, at ROC curve analysis, the most sensitive and specific for all the analyzed endpoints (T2E, n = 74; sac expansion n = 19; re-intervention, n = 10, sac shrinkage, n = 72). The combination antihypertensive therapy showed a significant inverse relationship with T2E occurrence. The incidence of primary endpoints was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in patients with SBP ≥ 130 mmHg. Cardiovascular death was significantly more prevalent (p < 0,001) in patients with SBP ≥130 mmHg. These findings were confirmed at the multivariable Cox regression analysis [primary endpoint HR = 0.09(0.06-0.15), p < 0.001; cardiovascular death HR = 0.33(0.12-0.85), p = 0.023].

CONCLUSIONS

Tight SBP control at the target of 130 mmHg at the time of elective EVAR significantly decreases TE2 occurrence, need of re-intervention and cardiovascular death in a prolonged follow-up of a large sample of patients.

Effectiveness of Embolization of Inferior Mesenteric Artery to Prevent Type II Endoleak Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Review of the Literature

Type II endoleak is a common complication that develops after endovascular aneurysm repair. Patients with type II endoleak, which has persisted for 6 months, have a significantly higher rate of aneurysmal sac enlargement, reintervention, and rupture. To date, several studies have examined the effectiveness of preoperative embolization of branch vessels for the prevention of type II endoleak. Particularly, the embolization of the large inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) seems to be a precise, safe, and effective method. IMA is a significant risk factor for type II endoleak. However, there is currently no strong evidence to prove which patients would benefit from preventive IMA embolization. In addition, considering the incidence of type II endoleak and the adverse event rate, routine embolization seems to be unreliable and time-consuming. Moreover, previous reports of preoperative IMA embolization were retrospective. Thus, prospective and randomized studies are necessary so that the usefulness of IMA embolization can be proved and the potential benefits can be assessed. To establish preventive IMA embolization as one of the effective therapeutic strategies to prevent type II endoleak and to maximize its therapeutic effect, we should provide a wide range of therapeutic strategies to suit the state of the patient.

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.

Preoperative Inferior Mesenteric Artery Embolization: A Valid Method to Reduce the Rate of Type II Endoleak after EVAR?

BACKGROUND

Type II endoleak is the most commonly encountered endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Some have advocated preoperative inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) embolization as a valid method for reducing the incidence of this endoleak, but controversies exist. We sought to demonstrate the impact of IMA embolization using a meta-analysis of currently available studies combined with our own experience.

METHODS

We conducted an institutional review board-approved, retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing IMA embolization before EVAR between the years 2010 and 2015 and used as a control a similar group of patients with patent IMA. We divided patients from our own experience and 5 other studies into 2 groups: those who did not undergo IMA embolization (control) before EVAR and those who did. Rates of type II endoleaks, aneurysm sac regression, and secondary interventions were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 620 patients from 6 studies were analyzed, including 258 patients who underwent an attempted IMA embolization before EVAR with a cumulative success rate of 99.2% (range, 93.8% to 100%). There was 1 fatality associated with IMA embolization. A meta-analysis showed that preoperative IMA embolization protected against type II endoleaks compared to the control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.31 [0.17-0.57]; P < 0.001, I² = 43%). Furthermore, the rate of secondary intervention was significantly lower in the treatment group (OR, 0.12 [0.004-0.36]; P < 0.001, I² = 0%). After IMA embolization, type II endoleak resulted from patent lumbar arteries in all 62 patients with persistent endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative embolization of the IMA protects against the development of type II endoleaks and secondary interventions and may potentially lead to a rapid aneurysm sac regression. The procedure can be performed with a high technical success rate and minimal complications and should be considered in patients with IMA >3 mm before EVAR. A randomized trial, however, is required to clearly delineate the clinical significance of this technique.

Strategies to Reduce the Rate of Type II Endoleaks: Routine Intraoperative Embolization of the Inferior Mesenteric Artery and Thrombin Injection into the Aneurysm Sac

Purpose:

To determine whether the rate of type II endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be decreased using a branch vessel management strategy.

Methods:

The branch vessel management strategy consisted of routine intraoperative embolization of all patent inferior mesenteric arteries (IMA) and thrombin injection into all aneurysm sacs that showed branch vessel filling on the “sacogram.” Sixty-nine consecutive patients (65 men; median age 77 years, range 58–90) undergoing elective EVAR since the protocol was introduced in July 2003 were included; 69 consecutive patients (65 men; median age 76 years, range 60–90) who underwent EVAR immediately prior to the protocol were used as controls. Primary outcome measures were type II endoleak rates and secondary intervention rates.

Results:

The median follow-up was 36 months (range 0.25–72) for the pre-protocol group and 12 months (range 0.25–24) for the post-protocol group. The type II endoleak rate for the pre-protocol group was 26% compared to 14% for the post-protocol group (p=0.14). This difference was not significant on Kaplan-Meir analysis (p=0.23). The 18 type II endoleaks in the pre-protocol group included 14 lumbar endoleaks, 1 IMA endoleak, and 3 combined lumbar and IMA endoleaks. The 10 type II endoleaks in the post-protocol group included 9 lumbar artery endoleaks and 1 IMA endoleak. Ten (14%) patients in the pre-protocol group required 15 interventions for type II endoleak compared to 2 (3%) in the post-protocol group who required 3 secondary procedures for type II endoleak (p=0.03). This difference was not significant on Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=0.22). Of the 12 interventions for lumbar endoleaks, only 5 (42%) were successful.

Conclusion:

Although there was a trend toward lower type II endoleak rates with our branch vessel management strategy, this did not reach statistical significance. Our data also indicated that there is a high incidence of lumbar endoleaks, and they are difficult to treat. Therefore, we believe there should be ongoing research into means to prevent lumbar endoleaks.

Visualization of Lumbar Artery Variations by Contrast-Enhanced Multi-detector Row Computed Tomography

PURPOSE

This study was designed to identify the anatomical variations of lumbar arteries on contrast-enhanced multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive 100 colon cancer patients underwent preoperative 3-dimensional navigation studies, which include CT colonography (CTC) and CT angiography (CTA) for evaluation of anatomical relationship between the colon cancer and mesenteric vasculatures. After exclusion of inappropriate cases, 84 cases (33 women and 51 men; mean age, 64 years) were finally analyzed. The visualization of lumbar arteries from the CTA was scored based on the agreement of two radiology specialists. Also the presence or absence of left and right common trunk of each lumbar artery was evaluated.

RESULTS

Visualization scores on both sides of L1 were significantly lower than those of L2-L4. No significant difference could be found on visualization of L1 lumbar arteries between the young and the elderly group. The common trunk tended to be in the lower lumbar levels (L1 in 2.4%, L2 in 9.5%, L3 in 11%, and L4 in 23%).

CONCLUSION

The development and variation of lumbar arteries can be evaluated with CTA. Furthermore, CTA can provide sufficient anatomical information on variations of the lumbar arteries prior to surgery or catheterization.

Predictive Factors for the Development of Type 2 Endoleak Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Type 2 endoleak (T2EL) is the most common complication following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms. The management of T2ELs is controversial due to the relatively low incidence of negative outcomes when secondary intervention is avoided. Some studies challenge this practice as demonstrated by adverse events following conservative treatment of T2ELs. Evidence has shown that the preoperative computed tomographic angiogram can predict the development of T2EL based on a patient's arterial anatomy, specifically vessels associated with increased rates of post-EVAR endoleak development. Preoperative embolization of those aortic branch vessels associated with T2ELs has shown decreased rates of postoperative complications and may result in a decreased need for surveillance and reintervention.

Endovascular chimney technique for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm: a systematic review using pooled analysis and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of chimney endovascular abdominal aortic repair (Ch-EVAR) for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm.

METHODS

Electronic literature published between 2003 and 2014 were searched from MEDLINE and EMBASE online databases. Inclusion criteria for articles included that more than 3 patients were enrolled, chimney graft techniques were used, and the basic outcomes, such as indications, mortality within 30-day or during follow-up, complications, endoleaks, and branch vessel patency were collected. The data were pooled for analysis. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata version 11 and heterogeneity was estimated using Cochrane Q statistic and I(2) statistic.

RESULTS

In total, 12 electronic literature met the inclusion criteria and 236 patients (mean age, 73.9 years) undergone Ch-EVAR were collected. A total of 335 chimney grafts were implanted, including 288 to the renal arteries and 47 to superior mesenteric arteries. Mortality (<30 days) and mortality (during follow-up; a mean of 12 months) were 3.8% (9/236) and 10.6% (25/236), respectively. The rate of type I, II and III endoleaks during follow-up was 11.8% (28/236), 8.1% (19/236), and 0.4% (1/236), respectively. The chimney graft patency at 6 month was 96.6%. Meta-analysis showed that the rates of endoleaks (during follow-up), mortality (<30 days) and mortality (during follow-up) were 18%, 7% and 13%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Chimney graft is an efficient therapy with high initial technical success rate and favorable rates for perioperative outcomes.

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.

CT Findings of Risk Factors for Persistent Type II Endoleak from Inferior Mesenteric Artery to Determine Indicators of Preoperative IMA Embolization

PURPOSE

To identify the computed tomography (CT) findings of persistent type II endoleak from the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) which indicate the need for preoperative IMA embolization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Included were 120 patients (96 males, 49-93 years old, mean: 77.7) who underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) between June 2007 and October 2010. The relationship between persistent type II endoleak and CT findings of IMA orifice was examined.

RESULTS

CT showed no type II endoleak from IMA in 106 patients (89%; Group N), and transient type II endoleak from IMA in 10 patients (8.3%; Group T). CT showed persistent type II endoleak from IMA in 4 patients (3.3%; Group P) and three of them underwent reintervention. Univariate Cox-Mantel test analysis indicated that stenosis (p = 0.0003) and thrombus (p = 0.043) in IMA orifice were significant factors for persistent type II endoleak. The ratios of patients with proximal IMA more than 2.5 mm diameter in Groups N, Y, and P were 26/106 (24%), 5/10 (50%) and 4/4 (100%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Indicators for embolization of IMA prior to EVAR for the prevention of type II endoleak appear to be: (1) more than 2.5 mm in diameter and (2) no stenosis due to calcification or mural thrombus in IMA orifice.

Preoperative inferior mesenteric artery embolization before endovascular aneurysm repair: decreased incidence of type II endoleak and aneurysm sac enlargement with 24-month follow-up

PURPOSE

To review the effect of preoperative embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) before endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) on subsequent endoleaks and aneurysm growth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between August 2002 and May 2010, 108 patients underwent IMA embolization before EVAR. Coil embolization was performed in all patients in whom the IMA was successfully visualized and accessed during preoperative conventional angiography. In this cohort, the incidences of type II endoleak, aneurysm sac volume enlargement at 24 months, and repeat intervention were compared with a group of 158 consecutive patients with a patent IMA on preoperative computed tomography angiography but not on conventional angiography, who therefore did not undergo preoperative embolization.

RESULTS

The incidence of type II endoleak was significantly higher in patients not treated with embolization (49.4% [78 of 158] vs 34.3% [37 of 108]; P = .015). The incidence of secondary intervention for type II endoleak embolization was also significantly higher in those who did not undergo embolization (7.6% [12 of 158] vs 0.9% [one of 108]; P = .013). At 24 months, an increase in aneurysm sac volume was observed in 47% of patients in the nonembolized cohort (21 of 45), compared with 26% of patients in the embolized cohort (13 of 51; P = .03). No aneurysm ruptures or aneurysm-related deaths were observed in either group. One patient in the embolization group developed mesenteric ischemia and ultimately died.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative embolization of the IMA was associated with reduced incidences of type II endoleak, aneurysm sac volume enlargement at 24 months, and secondary intervention.

A new injectable radiopaque chitosan-based sclerosing embolizing hydrogel for endovascular therapies

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms with a stent graft is limited by the persistence or recurrence of endoleaks. These are believed to be related to the recanalization of the aneurismal sac by endothelialized neochannels, which could lead to late type I and II endoleaks. Embolization has been proposed to treat or prevent endoleaks, but presently commercialized embolizing materials have several drawbacks and do not fully prevent endoleak recurrence. A novel chitosan hydrogel that is injectable, radiopaque and contains sodium tetradecyl sulfate (STS), a well-known sclerosing agent, was developed in order to combine blood flow occlusion and endothelium ablation properties. chitosan/STS hydrogels were characterized and optimized using rheometry, scanning electron microscopy, swelling and ex vivo embolization assay. They were shown to exhibit rapid gelation and good mechanical properties, as well as sclerosing properties. Their potential for the embolization of aneurysms was subjected to preliminary in vivo evaluation in a bilateral iliac aneurysm model (three dogs) reproducing persistent endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). At 3 months no endoleak was detected in any of the three aneurysms treated with chitosan/STS hydrogels. In contrast, type I endoleaks were detected in two of the three aneurysms treated with chitosan hydrogels. Generally, chitosan/STS hydrogels have great potential as embolizing and sclerosing agents for EVAR and possibly other endovascular therapies.

Multimodal approach to the endovascular treatment of embolisation or exclusion of the renal arteries and their distal and/or polar branches: personal experience

PURPOSE

This study reviews our experience over the last 10 years with procedures of embolisation and/or exclusion of the renal arteries, their parenchymal branches and the polar arteries [renal artery embolisation (RAE)].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven patients (19 men and eight women; age range 37-93 years; mean 74 years) underwent RAE. The indications were: symptomatic gross haematuria in nine patients (33.3%) (tumour-related in seven and iatrogenic in two), symptomatic inoperable renal tumour in five (18.5%), large subcapsular or perirenal haematoma in three (11.1%) and aneurysm of the main renal artery in two (7.4%). Eight patients (29.6%) scheduled for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of the abdominal aorta underwent prophylactic embolisation of the renal polar branch arising from the aneurysmal sac or the subrenal aortic neck to prevent the possible revascularisation of the sac. Different embolisation agents were used: coils (17 cases), embolisation particles (14 cases), glue (one case), coated stent (two cases) and mechanical occlusion devices (two cases). In 11 cases, two to three different embolisation agents were used together.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 26/27 patients (96.3%); in one case, embolisation of a polar artery arising from the aneurysmal sac was not possible. One case of gross haematuria recurred 13 months after the procedure and was re-treated with success. There were no cases of major or minor complications.

CONCLUSIONS

RAE is an effective and minimally invasive procedure in the treatment of neoplastic/iatrogenic symptomatic gross haematuria and in the palliative treatment of inoperable renal tumours. One possible new indication is the prophylactic exclusion of the polar artery arising from the neck or the sac of an abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients who are candidates for EVAR. In our experience, we observed very low morbidity and a short hospital stay. This procedure requires the availability of various materials for performing embolisation and experience in their use.

Preoperative variables predict persistent type 2 endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Persistent type 2 endoleaks (PT2, present >or=6 months) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are associated with adverse outcomes. This study evaluated the preoperative risk factors and natural history of PT2 in order to define a population at high risk.

METHODS

From January 1999 to December 2007, 595 of 832 EVAR patients had long-term computed tomography follow-up and comprised the study cohort. Preoperative anatomic and clinical variables were correlated with PT2 using Cox regression. Composite hazard ratios (HRs) were constructed with clusters of high-risk preoperative variables. Primary end points, including spontaneous resolution, sac enlargement >5 mm, and freedom from reintervention, were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

There were 136 PT2 patients (23%) with a median follow-up of 34.8 months (range, 6.4-121.2 months). Positive predictive factors included patent inferior mesenteric artery (IMA; HR, 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62-9.90; P = .003), increasing number of patent lumbar arteries (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.41; P = .0006), increasing age (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P = .005), and increasing luminal diameter on CT-contrast opacified lumen (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05; P = .0001). During follow-up, spontaneous PT2 resolution occurred in 34 patients (25%), sac diameter remained stable in 63 (46%), and rupture occurred in 2 (1.5%). Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated that 35.2% +/- 5.6% (95% CI, 23.8%-46.2%) of PT2 resolve spontaneously at 5 years after the index procedure. Freedom from sac enlargement >5 mm was 54.6% +/- 7.2% (95% CI, 40.6%-69.4%) at 5 years. Fifty-nine reinterventions were performed in 39 patients with PT2. Freedom from reintervention was 67.3% +/- 5.0% (95% CI, 57.0%-77.0%) at 5 years. The combination of a patent IMA and one risk factor of more than six patent lumbar arteries, maximum luminal diameter >30 mm, or age >70 years increased the odds of PT2 approximately ninefold. The combination of a patent IMA and any two risk factors increased the odds of PT2 approximately 18-fold.

CONCLUSIONS

Several readily identifiable preoperative variables are associated with PT2 whose natural history was benign in but 35% of patients. On the basis of the composite high-risk HRs, there is accordingly a cohort of patients in whom perioperative interventions to preclude PT2 should be considered.

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.

Prospective, intraindividual comparison of MRI versus MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

This study compares MRI and MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). Forty-three patients with previous EVAR underwent both MRI (2D T1-FFE unenhanced and contrast-enhanced; 3D triphasic contrast-enhanced) and 16-slice MDCT (unenhanced and biphasic contrast-enhanced) within 1 week of each other for endoleak detection. MRI was performed by using a high-relaxivity contrast medium (gadobenate dimeglumine, MultiHance). Two blinded, independent observers evaluated MRI and MDCT separately. Consensus reading of MRI and MDCT studies was defined as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and Cohen's k statistics were used to estimate agreement between readers. Twenty endoleaks were detected in 18 patients at consensus reading (12 type II and 8 indeterminate endoleaks). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for endoleak detection were 100%, 92%, and 96%, respectively, for reader 1 (95%, 81%, 87% for reader 2) for MRI and 55%, 100%, and 80% for reader 1 (60%, 100%, 82% for reader 2) for MDCT. Interobserver agreement was excellent for MDCT (k = 0.96) and good for MRI (k = 0.81). MRI with the use of a high-relaxivity contrast agent is significantly superior in the detection of endoleaks after EVAR compared with MDCT. MRI may therefore become the preferred technique for patient follow-up after EVAR.

Endovascular aneurysm repair: current and future status

Endovascular aneurysm repair has rapidly expanded since its introduction in the early 1990s. Early experiences were associated with high rates of complications including conversion to open repair. Perioperative morbidity and mortality results have improved but these concerns have been replaced by questions about long-term durability. Gradually, too, these problems have been addressed. Challenges of today include the ability to roll out the endovascular technique to patients with adverse aneurysm morphology. Fenestrated and branch stent-graft technology is in its infancy. Only now are we beginning to fully understand the advantages, limitations, and complications of such technology. This paper outlines some of the concepts and discusses the controversies and challenges facing clinicians involved in endovascular aneurysm surgery today and in the future.

Complications of Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Review

The endovascular procedure for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms has had an enormous impact on the treatment of this challenging disease. Complications, however, do occur and it is important to have a thorough understanding of the array of complications and appropriate management strategies. In this review of endovascular complications, we describe early and late complications paying particular attention to preventive, treatment and surveillance strategies.

An 8-year experience with type II endoleaks: Natural history suggests selective intervention is a safe approach

OBJECTIVE

The treatment of type II endoleaks remains controversial because little is known about their long-term natural history and impact on changes in aneurysm morphology. This study reviews type II endoleaks occurring in patients after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) at a single-institution over an 8-year period.

METHODS

All patients undergoing EVAR who had type II endoleaks documented on follow-up imaging studies at our institution between January 1997 and March 2005 were reviewed. Data regarding patient demographics in addition to aneurysm size, device type, operative complications, and secondary interventions were reviewed. Outcomes evaluated included the rate of spontaneous sealing, freedom from secondary intervention, and aneurysm enlargement, rupture, or conversion.

RESULTS

Type II endoleaks were present in 154 of 965 patients (16.0%) undergoing EVAR. Mean follow-up time was 22.0 months (range, 1 to 72 months). Fifty-five patients (35.7%) with type II endoleaks sealed spontaneously in a mean time of 14.5 months. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, approximately 75% of type II endoleaks sealed spontaneously within a 5-year period. Nineteen patients (12.3%) with type II endoleaks were treated at a mean time of 19.9 months at the operating surgeon's discretion, including 13 with sac enlargement >5 mm. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated that approximately 65% of the patients remained free of intervention after a period of 4 years. Thirteen patients (8.4%) experienced aneurysm sac enlargement >5 mm. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated that approximately 80% of patients with type II endoleaks remained free of sac enlargement >5 mm over a 4-year period. No patients with type II endoleaks experienced rupture or required conversion to open repair during their follow-up. Cox regression analysis showed that cancer, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were associated with earlier spontaneous closure of the type II endoleaks (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that type II endoleaks have a relatively benign course, and in the absence of sac expansion, can be followed for a prolonged course of time without the need for intervention. The rate of spontaneous seal continues to increase with time and, therefore, close follow-up of patients with type II endoleaks who show no signs of aneurysm expansion is a safe approach. For patients in whom the exact etiology of their endoleak is in question, dynamic imaging should be used to exclude the presence of a type I endoleak.

Type 2 Endoleaks after Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Stent Grafting with Systematic Mesenteric and Lumbar Coil Embolization

We evaluated the results of our policy of systematic coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and/or lumbar arteries (LAs) prior to endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR). We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing EVAR over a 4-year period at one hospital. Results were analyzed using uni- and multivariate analyses. Fifty-five male patients with an average age of 71 years were evaluated. Follow-up averaged 15 +/- 13 months. The IMA was either coiled or occluded in 30 cases. One or more LAs were coiled in 29 patients. An average of 1.3 LAs per patients were coiled (range 0-6). There were no immediate or late complications from coiling. At last follow-up, 14 AAAs showed no change in diameter, one increased by 2 mm, and the remainder (n = 40) decreased by 7.5 +/- 6 mm in maximal diameter. Only five (9%) type 2 endoleaks were detected during follow-up. Three were associated with AAA size increase. Four of the five were treated with additional coiling, with good results. By logistic regression, neither endoleak occurrence nor AAA shrinkage correlated with LA or IMA coiling. However, by multivariate analysis, completeness of lumbar coiling correlated negatively with aneurysm shrinkage (p = 0.04) and IMA coiling correlated positively with aneurysm shrinkage (p = 0.04). Coil embolization of the IMA and/or LAs prior to EVAR can be safely accomplished in a large number of cases and is associated with a low incidence of type 2 endoleaks. We cannot at present demonstrate a benefit to LA embolization in terms of endoleak prevention or AAA shrinkage. However, IMA embolization may be of benefit in terms of AAA shrinkage.

Type II lumbar endoleaks: Hemodynamic differentiation by contrast-enhanced ultrasound scanning and influence on aneurysm enlargement after endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to differentiate type II lumbar endoleaks on the basis of dynamic features identified by contrast-enhanced ultrasound scanning (CUS) and to evaluate the role of this differentiation in detecting abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) enlargement > or =1 mL/mo.

METHODS

Eighteen male patients (mean age, 71.8 years) with type II lumbar endoleak suspected at CUS underwent computed tomography angiography (CTA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). On CTA, AAA volumes and endoleak visualization and volume were assessed. At CUS, performed after a bolus of 1.5 to 2.4 mL of a second generation blood pool contrast agent, the following parameters were evaluated: presence of contrast material within the aneurysmal sac (endoleak), delay of endoleak detection (wash-in) and disappearance (washout) from the beginning of contrast injection, visualization of inflow and outflow vessels, and presence of cavity filling. Statistical analysis was performed regarding endoleak features at CUS, endoleak detection at CTA, and rate of AAA enlargement.

RESULTS

DSA confirmed all the endoleaks. Mean +/- standard deviation wash-in and washout times were 121.9 +/- 132.6 and 337.2 +/- 193.7 seconds, respectively; a significant relation was observed between these two parameters (P < .01, analysis of variance). By Youden plots, endoleaks were classified as hyperdynamic when wash-in was <100 seconds (n = 10, 55.5%) and/or washout was <520 seconds (n = 13, 72.2%). A slower washout was associated with nonvisualized outflow (66.7%) and/or inflow arteries (66.7%) ( P < .05). Eight endoleaks (44.4%) were missed at CTA; it occurred in hypodynamic endoleaks, absence of detectable inflow or outflow vessels, and absence of cavity filling at CUS (P < .05). Overall mean AAA volume increase rate was 1.1 +/- 1.7 mL/mo. By multiple logistic regression model, the washout time > or = 520 seconds was the only independent predictor of AAA volume increase > or = 1 mL/mo (8 patients, 44.4%).

CONCLUSION

Type II lumbar endoleaks show different hemodynamic features at CUS, which might influence the rate of aneurysm enlargement, addressing the need for treatment.