Complex endoleak treatment after failed endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has created new possibilities for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), and in recent years it has become tremendously popular. Use of EVAR in selected groups of patients allows mortality and morbidity to be reduced in comparison to open repair. However, complications such as endoleaks (ELs) can be of great concern and warrant urgent therapy to prevent sac rupture.

CASE PRESENTATION

The case report presents urgent endovascular treatment of a high-risk type IA EL in a polymorbid 68-year-old patient 7 years after primary EVAR. The principle of treatment was parallel implantation of the proximal SG extension with the renal SG into the right renal artery (chimney technique). The subsequent type II collateral EL was treated by direct transabdominal AAA sac puncture and thrombin embolization.

CONCLUSION

EL can be a cause for urgent intervention, but specific anatomic features often require specialized SG types which are not readily available. The chimney technique allows the use of immediately available stent grafts to address endoleak in the setting of impending abdominal aneurysm rupture.

Treatment of a type Ia endoleak following EVAR using a custom-made inner branch device

OBJECTIVES

We represent two cases of late proximal type I endoleak following EVAR with aneurysm expansion that were treated with a custom-made graft with inner branches.

METHODS

Two patients of 87 and 82 years old were operated by EVAR 6 and 8 years ago for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Both had proximal type I endoleak with aneurysm sac expansion. Open surgery had a high risk, and a proximal aortic extension with a simple aortic cuff was not possible neither because previous EVAR grafts were already at the level of the renal arteries. A custom-made endograft with inner branches was planned as a fenestrated graft was not technically possible.

RESULTS

We successfully treated both patients using a custom-made graft with four inner branches from Jotec (Cryolife, Kennesaw, GA). Three months' follow-up CT scan did not show any endoleaks. All target vessels were patent with good conformability of the bridging stents.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of proximal type I endoleak using inner branches' endografts is feasible. This novel technology might broaden the indications for complex aortic repair in a group of patients where fenestrated endografts are not possible.

Mid-Term Outcomes of Chimney Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To provide an overview of the literature on the mid-term outcomes of chimney EVAR (ChEVAR) for the treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (JAAA).

METHODS

Different electronic databases were searched for published articles up to January 2020. The eligibility criteria were studies describing mid- or long-term outcomes of chimney EVAR (mean follow-up at least 1 year) for treatment of JAAA, including more than 10 cases, published in English, and with full text available. The outcomes measure were overall survival rate, target vessel patency, and freedom from reintervention at 3 years. Quality of the included studies was analyzed using the MINORS criteria. Pooled effect estimates were analyzed using random-effect models and heterogeneity was tested using I² statistics.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria. The included studies described 1,019 patients. According to the quality assessment, methodological quality was moderate to poor. The pooled overall survival, freedom from reintervention, and target vessel patency at 3 year was 81.4 % (95%CI 73.8-87.9), 85.7% (95%CI 75.6-93.5), and 95.1% (95%CI 89.3-98.7) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review show good to acceptable short and mid-term survival and good mid-term durability, which supports that ChEVAR as a suitable alternative in high-risk JAAA. However, proper patient selection for ChEVAR seems essential to attain good mid-term outcomes, and further large prospective and good quality studies are required to demonstrate its long-term results and enable conclusions on specific determinants for outcome.

Use of Chimney Technique Does Not Improve the Outcome of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients With a Hyperangulated and Short Proximal Aortic Neck

PURPOSE

We hypothesized that extending the proximal landing zone with the chimney technique could be beneficial in patients with a hyperangulated proximal aortic neck, defined as more > 60 degrees.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the outcome of prospectively collected data of patients treated by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal aortic aneurysm with a hyperangulated proximal aortic neck. In all, 104 out of 130 patients were treated without (Group A) and 24 with the chimney endovascular aortic repair (ChEVAR, Group B). Primary outcome was technical and clinical success according to the reporting standards of the Society of Vascular Surgery.

RESULTS

The use of the chimney technique was associated with a significantly longer operation duration (167 vs. 93 min, p < .001), longer fluoroscopy time (44 vs.30 min, p = < .001), and larger amount of contrast medium used (149 vs. 127 ml, p = .03) but did not significantly improve technical (79.2% vs. 87.7%) and clinical success (54.2% vs. 68.9%). Aneurysm-related mortality was higher in group B (8.3% vs. = 0%, p < .001). Type IA endoleak was high in both groups at completion angiography (11.3% in Group A vs. 12.5% in Group B) and at follow-up (10.4% in Group A vs. 4.5% in Group B) without significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data did not show a benefit of the primary use of the chimney technique in patients with a hyperangulated and short neck, although more studies are required to support this conclusion. Other strategies or new technologies are required for improving EVAR results in aneurysm patients with severe angulated proximal and short neck.

Systematic review of embolization of type I endoleaks using liquid embolic agents

OBJECTIVE

The long-term success of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is limited by complications, most importantly endoleaks. In case of (persistent) type I endoleak (T1EL), secondary intervention is indicated to prevent secondary aneurysm rupture. Different treatment options are suggested for T1ELs, such as endo anchors, (fenestrated) cuffs, embolization, or open conversion. Currently, the treatment of T1EL with liquid embolic agents is available; however, results are not yet addressed. This review presents the safety and efficacy of embolization with liquid embolic agents for treatment of T1ELs after EVAR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for all studies reporting the use of liquid embolic agents as monotherapy for treatment of T1ELs after EVAR. Patient numbers, technical success (successful delivery of liquid embolics in the T1EL) and clinical success (absence of aneurysm related death, endoleak recurrence or additional interventions during follow-up) were examined.

RESULTS

Of 1604 articles, 10 studies met the selection criteria, including 194 patients treated with liquid embolics; 73.2% of the patients were male with a median age of 71 years. The overall technical success was 97.9%. Clinical success was 87.6%. Because the median follow-up was only 13.0 months (range, 1-89 months), data on long-term success are almost absent. Four cases (2.1%) of secondary aneurysm rupture after embolization owing to endoleak recurrence were reported. All ruptures occurred in aneurysms exceeding initial treatment diameter of 70 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial technical success after liquid embolization for T1EL is high, although long-term clinical success rates are lacking. Within this review, the risk of secondary rupture is comparable with untreated T1EL at 2% with a median follow-up of 13 months, regardless of the initial success of embolization. In general, no decrease in secondary aneurysm rupture after embolization of T1EL after EVAR is demonstrated, although the results of late embolization are debated.

Hybrid Approach with Angiography and Limited Open Exposure to Treat Type Ia Endoleaks after Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Type Ia endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) almost always mandate secondary percutaneous reinterventions. Several patients, however, will require conversion to open surgical repair with complete graft explant, which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We herein present 3 cases of hybrid surgical repair for type Ia endoleaks, using a limited open exposure for proximal stent graft edge revision to achieve graft preservation and effective aneurysm sac exclusion.

METHODS

Angiography was used to confirm type Ia endoleak in 3 patients (2 males) who had previous EVAR between October 2017 and October 2019. Time to the endoleak after the index EVAR was immediate in 1 patient during repair of a ruptured aneurysm, 2 months in 1 patient and 2 years in 1 patient. The aorta was exposed through a limited transabdominal (n = 1) or retroperitoneal (n = 2) approach and circumferential aortic control was achieved below the renal arteries. A row of interrupted horizontal mattress sutures of 3-0 polypropylene reinforced with Teflon pledgets was placed along the aortic neck circumference. Multi-planar angiography was then repeated to verify the absence of sac filling and successful type Ia endoleak exclusion. Follow-up abdominal duplex was obtained for all 3 patients after discharge to monitor the stent graft and confirm endoleak resolution. Furthermore, there were no instances of acute renal failure.

RESULTS

In the period of review, 77 patients underwent EVAR. In the 3 patients described, we were able to achieve complete aneurysm sac exclusion and stent graft preservation in all cases. Follow-up imaging was available on 2 patients at 4-6 weeks after surgery demonstrating sustained exclusion of the endoleak. Two patients died during follow-up: one from a myocardial infarction 7 weeks after surgery and one from metastatic lung cancer at 8 months after surgery. Follow up duplex imaging at one year on the single survivor demonstrated sac shrinkage and absence of endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

Type Ia endoleaks represent a significant source of morbidity and mortality after EVAR and typically require repair to avoid aneurysm rupture. Our use of limited proximal revision without explant provides an alternative approach to resolve the endoleaks while reducing the magnitude of physiological stress when compared to an open explant. It represents a feasible option for high-risk patients.

Reporting standards for endovascular aortic repair of aneurysms involving the renal-mesenteric arteries

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of complex aortic aneurysms requires incorporation of side branches using specially designed aortic stent grafts with fenestrations, directional branches, or parallel stent grafts. These techniques have been increasingly used and reported in the literature. The purpose of this document is to clarify and to update terminology, classification systems, measurement techniques, and end point definitions that are recommended for reports dealing with endovascular repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms involving the renal and mesenteric arteries.

Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Most abdominal aortic aneurysms are treated with endovascular repair (EVAR) in current practice. EVAR has lower periprocedural mortality and morbidity than open surgical repair. Aneurysm neck morphology, iliac anatomy, and access vessel anatomy need careful assessment for the successful performance of EVAR. Regular and long-term follow-up with imaging is mandatory after EVAR, and patients who are less likely to comply are less favorable EVAR candidates. Endoleaks are the most frequent complication of EVAR. Most can be managed with transcatheter or endovascular means. Evolving technology and techniques are allowing more patients to be treated with EVAR with better long-term outcomes.

Consecutive failing proximal landing zones

We report the case of a 77-year-old man who presented with successive aortic aneurysms during a 12-year period. He was first treated in 2006 for an abdominal aortic aneurysm with a bifurcated endograft, then in 2016 for a tender type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm with a proximal aortic cuff with in situ laser fenestrations. He presented in 2018 with a 9-cm distal thoracic aorta aneurysm managed by an off-the-shelf t-Branch endograft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind). The perioperative course was uneventful, and 6-month follow-up computed tomography scan has shown freedom from endoleaks and branch patency. This case illustrates that apparently “healthy” aortic necks can degenerate after endovascular aneurysm repair.

FEVAR/BEVAR have limitations and do not always represent the preferred option for juxtarenal reconstruction

Following the definition given by the recent ESVS guidelines, juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA) is defined as an aneurysm extending up to but not involving the renal arteries, necessitating suprarenal aortic clamping for open surgery, i.e. a short neck (<10 mm). JAAA repair always represents a challenge intervention, either by open or endovascular means, mostly related to the renal arteries involvement. Concerning endovascular repair, different options can be considered. Among them, fenestrated endografts (FEVAR) should be considered as a first option1, due to their reported safety and efficacy. However, when the anatomy is not favorable or when FEVAR devices are not available in an emergency setting for instance, other alternatives can be considered like parallel graft or chimney technique (ChEVAR). Do nothing is the last alternative when medical and anatomical circumstances are absolutely poor. In the following pages, we will review the limitations of FEVAR and branched endografts, the better indications and anatomical conditions for a successful repair with ChEVAR technique and its current clinical results reported in the literature.

Minimally Invasive Open Conversion for Late EVAR Failure

OBJECTIVE

With the increasing use of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), open repair after aortic stent grafting is of growing interest. The surgical conversion treatment may be a very challenging process with high mortality and in-hospital complication rates. The aim of this article is to present our experience in patients with EVAR failure treated by minimally invasive open conversion (MOC) and its technical aspects.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on a prospectively compiled computerized database of consecutive patients treated by MOC at our institution between May 2014 and June 2018. Indications for treatment were endoleaks with sac growth at least >5 mm in the last 6 months and failure of previous endovascular tentative for aneurysm sealing. Demographics of the patients, reason for conversion, previous endovascular procedures, surgical outcomes, and survival were reviewed. MOC was performed by a small abdominal incision, infrarenal clamping, and partial explantation of the endograft in all patients.

RESULTS

A total of 10 patients were treated during the study period. The mean interval to MOC after EVAR was 45.1 months (range, 14-128). Indications for MOC included type Ia endoleak in three patients (30%), persistent type II EL in four (40%), and type III EL in one patient (10%), indeterminate or type V EL in two (20%). At 30 days, no deaths or reinterventions were reported, and major complication rate was 10% (one postoperative pneumonia). At mean follow-up of 22.9 ± 15.9 months, no reinterventions were described. Death rate was (20%) with one aneurysm-related death (10%) for graft infection 32 months after MOC and one (10%) cardiac event at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the potential high risk of open conversion, MOC appears to be a safe surgical solution for EVAR failure. This potentially challenging operation may be improved with minimally invasive techniques that are presented.

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

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

Outcomes of endovascular treatment of endoleak type Ia after EVAR: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular repair of infra-renal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) has become treatment of choice. However, individuals undergoing EVAR have a high re-intervention rate. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current endovascular treatment modalities of endoleak type Ia (ET Ia) treatment after EVAR and their outcome.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched with PRISMA methodology for studies reporting on endovascular treatment of ET Ia after EVAR. Studies presenting treatment of intra-operative ET Ia were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Two international registries, fourteen non-randomized retrospective and twelve case-report studies were included reporting on 356 patients. Reported endovascular techniques included fenestrated-, branched-, chimney EVAR, endovascular sealing (EVAS), endoanchors, embolization techniques, cuff and/or "giant" Palmaz stents. Technical success rate ranged from 90% to 100%, with intra-operative mortality rate of 0%. During early period, persistence of ET Ia was 3.4% (9/262) and the re-intervention rate was 3.5% (8/227). The 30-day mortality rate was 2% (7/356). Mean follow-up was 22.4 months±18. Presence of ET Ia was 5.9% (21/356), and the reintervention rate was 5.1% (18/349). The mortality rate was 13% (26/203), while the primary patency rate of TVs ranged from 94.3% to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

A multitude of techniques for endovascular repair for ET Ia exists. No strong evidence supports one specific technique. The early and mid-term outcomes are encouraging in terms of ET Ia resolution, mortality and morbidity rates.

Sealing Devices in Chimney Aortic Repair (CH EVAS) Versus Chimney Aortic Repair with Conventional Devices (CH EVAR): A Systematic Review

AIM

The aim of this study was to review the literature about the occurrence of postoperative type I endoleak (EL) and chimney graft thrombosis (CGT) after the use of sealing devices in chimney endovascular aortic repair (Ch EVAS), compared to chimney EVAR using conventional devices (Ch EVAR).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on PubMed and MEDLINE with the terms "Chimney" and "Parallel grafts" was performed. The review was set up following the PRISMA guidelines. Case series about the use of the chimney/snorkel technique during endovascular repair of juxtarenal/pararenal aneurysms (AAA) were considered. Only papers with full text available in English and reporting complete data with at least 1 month of follow-up about at least 5 cases were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 90 papers were assessed for eligibility. According to the inclusion criteria, only 25 papers could be analyzed (20 in the Ch EVAR group and 5 in the Ch EVAS group). A type I EL occurred in 9.3% after Ch EVAR (95% CI 7.1-12.2%) and in 8.3% after Ch EVAS (95% CI 3.5-18.5%), being not significantly different. CGT occurred in 10.7% of cases after Ch EVAR (95% CI 8.8-13%) and in 8.8% of cases after Ch EVAS (95% CI 3.3-21.3%), being also not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The reported rate of type I EL and CGT occurring after Ch EVAR tended to be slightly higher than those reported after Ch EVAS, even if the difference was not statistically significant.

Increasing use of open conversion for late complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Open procedures are often required for late complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Our aim was to describe the indications for open interventions and their postoperative outcomes and to specifically examine our experience with limited conversions in which problem endoleaks are targeted without endograft explantation.

METHODS

We reviewed patients from 2002 to 2017 who underwent any surgical abdominal aortic operation after a previous EVAR. Baseline characteristics, preoperative imaging, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes were reviewed. The primary end point was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

There were 102 patients who underwent open conversion 3.8 ± 3.1 years after EVAR. The numbers increased significantly in recent years, with 18 cases performed in 2016; 48.5% of patients had undergone 1.9 ± 1.0 prior endovascular interventions. The indication for surgical conversion was an endoleak in 85 patients and infection in 15. One patient had a limb occlusion and another a proximal aneurysm. The 30-day mortality was 6.2% in 65 patients treated electively for endoleak but higher in 20 ruptures (40.0%) and 15 infections (40.0%). In a multivariate logistic regression model, independent predictors of 30-day mortality were rupture (odds ratio [OR], 6.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-25.60; P = .005), endograft infection (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 1.99-36.20; P = .004), and use of a supraceliac clamp (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.47-15.66; P = .009). Transient acute kidney injury (12.8%) and prolonged intubation (11.8%) were the most common postoperative complications. In 65 patients treated for endoleak without rupture, 37 underwent endograft explantation, whereas 28 had a graft-preserving intervention (branch vessel ligation for type II endoleak in 26, external banding of the aneurysm neck for type IA endoleak in 8). Mortality was 8.1% when the endograft was explanted and 3.6% when it was not (P = .63). During 3.0 ± 3.5 years of follow-up, there was one reintervention after endograft explantation (for rupture secondary to type IB endoleak) and two reinterventions after graft preservation (for a new type IA endoleak and a new type II endoleak). Survival was 87.4% at 1 year and 70.9% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Open conversion is playing an increasing role in the management of late EVAR complications. Endoleaks treated electively by open conversion are reasonably safe and show good midterm durability, even with graft-preserving interventions that avoid endograft explantation.

Collected Transatlantic Experience From the PERICLES Registry: Use of Chimney Grafts to Treat Post-EVAR Type Ia Endoleaks Shows Good Midterm Results

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the performance of the chimney (ch) technique in the treatment of type Ia endoleaks after standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2014, 517 chEVAR procedures were performed in 13 US and European vascular centers (PERICLES registry). Thirty-nine patients (mean age 76.9±7.1 years; 33 men) were treated for persistent type Ia endoleak and had computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography follow-up at >1 month. Endurant abdominal stent-grafts were used in the 20 cases. Single chimney graft placement was performed in 18 (46%) patients and multiple in 21 (54%). Overall, 70 visceral vessels were targeted for revascularization. Results: Technical success was achieved in 35 (89.7%) cases; 3 persistent type Ia endoleaks and 1 chimney graft occlusion were detected within the first 30 days. Thirty-day mortality was 2.6%. Two other deaths (not aneurysm related) occurred during a mean follow-up of 21.9 months (0.23–71.3). Primary patency of the chimney grafts was 94.3% at 36 months. In a subgroup analysis comparing Endurant to other stent-grafts, no significant differences were observed regarding persistent endoleak [1/20 (5%) vs 2/19 (11%), p=0.6] or reintervention [1/20 (5%) vs 0/19 (0%)]. Conclusion: The present series demonstrates that chEVAR in the treatment of post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks has satisfactory results independent of the abdominal and chimney graft combinations. Midterm results show that chEVAR is an effective method for treating type Ia endoleaks.

Outcomes of Chimney and/or Periscope Techniques in the Endovascular Management of Complex Aortic Pathologies

Background:

The chimney/periscope technique has been used to address complex aortic pathologies. This study aimed to report the outcomes and experiences of chimney and/or periscope grafts (CPGs) used in the endovascular management of complex aortic pathologies.

Methods:

Twenty-two patients with complex aortic pathologies were retrospectively studied from January 2013 to August 2016 in two vascular centers of teaching hospitals. All patients were diagnosed using computed tomography angiography (CTA). The patients were followed up at postoperative 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and yearly thereafter with X-ray, ultrasound, and/or CTA.

Results:

Twenty-two cases (17 males; mean age 60.7 ± 16.3 years) with complex aortic pathologies were analyzed. Nineteen patients underwent CPGs only, and the other three cases underwent the simultaneous implantation of chimney/periscope and fenestrated/scallop grafts. Twenty-six arteries were managed with forty CPGs during the procedures. Complete angiographies revealed two Type I endoleaks, one Type III endoleak, and one Type IV endoleak. Other intraoperative complications included brachial thrombosis, external iliac artery rupture, and left renal stenosis. The 30-day mortality was 0. The mean follow-up was 26.1 ± 10.1 months with a range of 2–39 months. During the follow-up, two Type I endoleaks and one Type IV endoleak were observed. One right renal stent occlusion occurred in the 5^th month and turned patent after reintervention. Three patients died during the follow-up, one due to an aneurysm rupture as a Type I endoleak, and two due to myocardial infarction. The instant technical success was 96%. The primary and secondary patencies were 92% and 96%, respectively. The overall survival rates were 95%, 84%, and 84% at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Stent migration was not observed in any patient.

Conclusions:

Chimney/periscope techniques could be used to tackle complex aortic pathologies, but the indications must be strictly controlled, and additional experiences are required.

Configuration affects parallel stent grafting results

OBJECTIVE

A number of adjunctive "off-the-shelf" procedures have been described to treat complex aortic diseases. Our goal was to evaluate parallel stent graft configurations and to determine an optimal formula for these procedures.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all patients at a single medical center treated with parallel stent grafts from January 2010 to September 2015. Outcomes were evaluated on the basis of parallel graft orientation, type, and main body device. Primary end points included parallel stent graft compromise and overall endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compromise.

RESULTS

There were 78 patients treated with a total of 144 parallel stents for a variety of pathologic processes. There was a significant correlation between main body oversizing and snorkel compromise (P = .0195) and overall procedural complication (P = .0019) but not with endoleak rates. Patients were organized into the following oversizing groups for further analysis: 0% to 10%, 10% to 20%, and >20%. Those oversized into the 0% to 10% group had the highest rate of overall EVAR complication (73%; P = .0003). There were no significant correlations between any one particular configuration and overall procedural complication. There was also no significant correlation between total number of parallel stents employed and overall complication. Composite EVAR configuration had no significant correlation with individual snorkel compromise, endoleak, or overall EVAR or procedural complication. The configuration most prone to individual snorkel compromise and overall EVAR complication was a four-stent configuration with two stents in an antegrade position and two stents in a retrograde position (60% complication rate). The configuration most prone to endoleak was one or two stents in retrograde position (33% endoleak rate), followed by three stents in an all-antegrade position (25%). There was a significant correlation between individual stent configuration and stent compromise (P = .0385), with 31.25% of retrograde stents having any complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Parallel stent grafting offers an off-the-shelf option to treat a variety of aortic diseases. There is an increased risk of parallel stent and overall EVAR compromise with <10% main body oversizing. Thirty-day mortality is increased when more than one parallel stent is placed. Antegrade configurations are preferred to any retrograde configuration, with optimal oversizing >20%.

Cinical outcomes of Endurant II stent-graft for infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair: comparison of on-label versus off-label use

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the outcomes of the Endurant II (Medtronic) stent-graft used under instructions for use versus off-label in high-risk patients considered unfit for conventional surgery.

METHODS

Data from patients treated with the Endurant II stent-graft between December 2012 and March 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Sixty-four patients were included. Patients were assigned to group A if treated under instructions for use (n=34, 53%) and to group B if treated off-label (n=30, 47%). Outcome measures included perioperative mortality and morbidity, survival, freedom from reintervention, endoleak incidence, in-hospital length of stay, and mean stent-graft component used. Mean follow-up was 22.61±12 months (median, 21.06 months; range, 0-43 months).

RESULTS

One perioperative mortality (1.6%) and one perioperative complication (1.6%) occurred in group B. At two months follow-up, one iliac limb occlusion (1.6%) occurred in group A. No type I/III endoleaks were recorded. A type II endoleak was identified in three cases (4.7%). Overall survival at three years was 89% (97% for group A, 82% for group B; P = 0.428). Reintervention-free survival at three years was 97% for both groups (P = 0.991). A longer in-hospital stay was observed in group B (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

The Endurant II (Medtronic) new generation device was safe in off-label setting at mid-term follow-up. The off-label use of the Endurant II (Medtronic) is justified in patients considered unfit for conventional surgery. Larger studies are required in this subgroup of patients.

Transcatheter Embolization of Type I Endoleaks Associated With Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Using Ethylene Vinyl Alcohol Copolymer

Purpose:

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and outcome of transcatheter embolization using ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) of type I endoleaks associated with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Patient Population and Methods:

Retrospective chart review was performed to identify 8 consecutive patients who had undergone EVOH embolization for type I endoleaks between 2012 and 2015. The primary approach used to access the endoleak was the perigraft technique, where the endoleak itself is catheterized at the anastomotic site.

Results:

Six type Ia and 2 type Ib endoleaks were treated. In 2 patients, a direct transabdominal approach was used to access the endoleak because it was inaccessible via the perigraft approach. Coils were used in addition to EVOH in 5 cases. Residual endoleak was noted in 1 case, whereas 2 patients developed a recurrent type I endoleak during follow-up. No EVOH complications were observed. The 5 remaining patients demonstrated freedom from endoleak and reintervention at a mean follow-up of 6.9 months.

Conclusion:

Type I endoleaks can be safely and effectively treated by embolotherapy with EVOH. Larger endoleaks resulting from grossly undersized endografts appear to be unsuitable for EVOH embolization.

Management of Immediate Post-Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Type Ia Endoleaks and Late Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Post-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) endoleaks and the need for reintervention are challenging. Additional endovascular treatment is advised for type Ia endoleaks detected on post-EVAR completion angiogram. This study analyzed management and late outcomes of these endoleaks.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from EVAR patients during a 10-year period. All post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks on completion angiogram were identified (group A) and their early (30-day) and late outcomes were compared with outcomes of patients without endoleaks (group B). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for survival analysis, sac expansion, late type Ia endoleak, and reintervention.

RESULTS

Seventy-one of 565 (12.6%) patients had immediate post-EVAR type Ia endoleak. Early intervention (proximal aortic cuffs and/or stenting) was used in 56 of 71 (79%) in group A vs 31 of 494 (6%) in group B (p < 0.0001). Late type Ia endoleak was noted in 9 patients (13%) in group A at a mean follow-up of 28 months vs 10 patients (2%) in group B at a mean follow-up of 32 months (p < 0.0001). Late sac expansion and reintervention rates were 9% and 10% for group A vs 5% and 3% for group B (p = 0.2698 and p = 0.0198), respectively. Freedom rates from late type Ia endoleaks at 1, 3, and 5 years for group A were 88%, 85%, and 80% vs 98%, 98%, and 96% for group B (p < 0.001); and for late intervention, were 94%, 92%, and 77% for group A, and 99%, 97%, and 95% for group B (p = 0.007), respectively. Survival rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate post-EVAR type Ia endoleaks are associated with higher rates of early interventions, late endoleaks and reintervention, which will necessitate strict post-EVAR surveillance.

Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) and Chimney EVAS in the Treatment of Failed Endovascular Aneurysm Repairs

PURPOSE

To assess the technical success and clinical outcome of reinterventions using the Nellix Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing (EVAS) System to treat complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

Fifteen consecutive patients (mean age 79 years; 14 men) with prior EVAR were treated with EVAS between March 2014 and December 2015 at 2 institutions. The failed prior EVARs included 13 bifurcated endografts, 1 bifurcated graft plus fenestrated cuff, and 1 tube endograft. Endoleaks were the predominant indications: type Ia in 10 and type III in 5 (3 type IIIa and 2 type IIIb). All patients presented with progressive aortic aneurysms (median 7.85-cm diameter; range 6.5-11). Eight patients were treated on an urgent or emergency basis (6 symptomatic aneurysms and 2 contained ruptures). All patients underwent Nellix relining of the failed stent-graft; 10 had chimney (Ch) procedures in combination with EVAS (chEVAS) because the proximal landing zones were inadequate.

RESULTS

Technical success was 100%. All endoleaks were successfully sealed, and no additional intervention was required. No further endoleak after EVAS or chEVAS was recorded. Endobag protrusion occurred in 1 case without sequelae. One elderly patient with ruptured aneurysm died from multiple organ failure 2 months postoperatively. One renal artery guidewire injury led to nephrectomy because of active bleeding. No reinterventions, aneurysm-related mortalities, graft thrombosis, endoleaks, or chimney graft occlusions were observed during a median follow-up of 8 months (range 3-24).

CONCLUSION

The present preliminary experience demonstrates that the use of EVAS/chEVAS is feasible for treatment of failed EVAR. This technique may be used as bailout or an alternative treatment when other established methods are infeasible or not available.

Persistent Type I Endoleak after Endovascular Treatment with Chimney Technique

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is increasingly used in the treatment of acute type B aortic dissection. Type Ia endoleaks are a common complication of the procedure, but its clinical significance and the best treatment strategy remain poorly defined. We present a case of a type Ia endoleak following TEVAR in the treatment of acute type B aortic dissection. Chimney technique approach was used in an attempt to seal the endoleak. Although technical success was suboptimal, the patient remained clinically stable and event free. Data regarding the natural course and management of type Ia endoleaks following TEVAR for aortic dissection are sparse. Future research is required to establish the clinical and technical determinants of the need to treat these endoleaks and the best treatment strategy.

Intervention after endovascular aneurysm repair: Endosalvage techniques including perigraft arterial sac embolization and endograft relining

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has revolutionized the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). However, persistent AAA sac endoleak following EVAR can result in sac diameter increase requiring re-intervention in up to one-third of cases and even result in aneurysm rupture. In this case review, we summarize and detail endovascular re-interventions for each type of endoleak. We also detail specific options including stent-graft relining for indeterminate, Type III, and Type IV endoleaks and perigraft arterial sac embolization to induce thrombosis and resolve acute Type I, II, or III endoleaks. Endograft relining involves placement of a new stent-graft-elevating the bifurcation and extending the repair from renal artery to hypogastric arteries; perigraft arterial sac embolization involves placement of a catheter into the excluded sac from common femoral artery access, characterization of the inflow and outflow of the endoleak, and inducing cessation of the blood flow into the sac by the administration of thrombogenic material. Endoleaks range from low-pressure endoleaks, which can be safely monitored in a surveillance program to high-pressure endoleaks, which mandate intervention when associated with AAA sac diameter increase to protect from rupture. The evaluation of new devices and techniques to treat endoleak after EVAR remains an important issue in patient care after EVAR.

Spontaneous Sealing of a Type Ia Endoleak after Ovation Stent Graft Implantation in a Patient with On-Label Aortic Neck Anatomy

We report a case of an early type Ia endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of an abdominal aortic aneurysm by Ovation Stent Graft implantation and spontaneously resolved without further reintervention. The patient presents a conical aortic neck, but EVAR was performed within the instruction for use proposed by manufactory. At completion angiography, a low-flow type Ia endoleak was present and left untreated. Computed tomographic angiography performed on the third postoperative day showed infolding of the 2 sealing rings. The patient was dismissed without further treatment. At 3-month follow-up, the leak appeared spontaneously sealed with partial expansion of the 2 rings.