Aortic aneurysm sac filling with AneuFix injectable polymer during endovascular aneurysm repair: feasibility and safety trial study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Type II endoleaks (T2ELs) following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) can lead to aneurysm growth, compromising the stent graft seal and risking rupture. Preventing these endoleaks during EVAR involves filling the AAA sac around the stent graft to exclude the aneurysm and block any arteries causing the endoleak. This study investigates the feasibility and safety of using AneuFix, a biocompatible injectable polymer developed by TripleMed (Geleen, the Netherlands), for aneurysmal sac filling during EVAR in high-risk T2EL patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A feasibility, single-arm, single-centre clinical trial will initially include five patients with infrarenal AAA, eligible for EVAR, and at high risk for T2EL based on the number of patent lumbar arteries and the cross-sectional area of the aortic lumen at the level of the inferior mesenteric artery. Postevaluation by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board, the study cohort will extend to 25 patients. During EVAR and after stent graft deployment, the aneurysm sac is filled with AneuFix polymer using a filling sheath positioned parallel to the contralateral limb with the tip inside the aneurysm sac. Primary outcome is technical success (successful AAA sac filling). The secondary outcomes include clinical success at 6 and 12 months (occurrence of T2ELs and AAA growth assessed with CT angiography), intraoperative and perioperative complications, all endoleaks, adverse events, re-interventions, aneurysm rupture and patient survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial was approved by the Dutch Authorities (Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, IGJ), Amsterdam University Medical Centre Ethical Commission, and adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki and European Medical Device Regulation. Results will be shared at (inter)national conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04307992.

Efficacy of Preemptive Embolization of Sac Branches During Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Using N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate.

OBJECTIVE: A type 2 endoleak (T2EL) is the most frequently occurring endoleak type after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Residual T2ELs may cause aneurysm rupture; however, the management of a T2EL remains controversial. This study evaluated sac branch preemptive embolization using N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate, aiming to prevent T2ELs and sac shrinkage. METHODS: Twelve consecutive patients underwent elective preemptive embolization during EVAR at our hospital between August 2018 to March 2019. Their demographic information, operative details, and sac diameters were examined at 6 months after EVAR. RESULTS: No procedural complications were observed. There were no in-hospital deaths among the 12 patients. Sac shrinkage was observed in this cohort (53.8-52.1 mm, p = 0.01). A total of 33 lumbar arteries were occluded with this procedure, and 2 patients had residual T2ELs at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: A T2EL in preemptive sac branch embolization during EVAR has advantages in terms of safety and reduction. Although no clear evidence is available for the management of T2ELs, this study proposes a new standard to prevent it and improve the long-term outcomes after EVAR. However, embolization remains imperfect and further research is necessary.

Use of EndoAnchors during index endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in patients with hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy.

PURPOSE: Standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is sometimes the only treatment option for patients with hostile aortic neck anatomy, but it carries an increased risk of both early and late procedure-related complications. The aim of this study was to report on single-center experience with the Heli-FX EndoAnchors (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA) as an adjunctive procedure to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for prevention and perioperative treatment of proximal neck complications in patients with hostile neck anatomy.  MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective study evaluating 24 consecutive patients treated with EndoAnchors during the index EVAR procedure between November 2018 and August 2021. EndoAnchor implantation was indicated for cases with hostile proximal aortic neck anatomy characterised by the presence of at least one of the following parameters: length of 28 mm, angle of >60°, circumferential thrombus/calcification involving ≥50%, and reverse taper. RESULTS:  Median follow-up period was 22.5 months (IQR 2-31.5 months) with no aneurysm-related death, rupture, or conversion to open surgical repair during the follow-up. The procedural success rate was 100%, with no type Ia endoleak at the completion angiography. A mean of 7 EndoAnchors was used per patient (range 4-12). There were no EndoAnchor fractures and dislocations or stent graft fabric damage due to anchor implants. Twenty-three patients (95.8%) remained free of type Ia endoleak and migration on follow-up imaging. Aneurysm sac regression was observed in 13 patients (54.1%), while in 8 patients (33.3%) the sac remained stable. Sac enlargement was present in 1 patient (4.2%) due to late type Ia endoleak. Two patients were lost to the follow-up immediately after the procedure. Between two groups of patients (sac regression versus failure to regress), the larger initial diameter of the proximal neck was the only significant independent factor associated with a lower possibility of sac regression (p= 0,021). CONCLUSIONS:  The use of EndoAnchors during the index EVAR procedure in cases with challenging aortic neck anatomy with or without perioperative type Ia endoleak was associated with good midterm results and led to sac regression in most of the patients (Tab. 4, Fig. 3, Ref. 31).

Midterm outcomes of endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm using the cuff-first technique to prevent type II endoleaks.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the initial and midterm outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using the cuff-first technique (CFT) to prevent type II endoleak (T2EL). METHODS: CFT involves deploying an aortic cuff inside the AAA to cover the ostium of the aortic side branch vessels before deploying the main body. We performed a retrospective review of all patients undergoing EVAR with CFT or side branch embolization (SBE) for AAAs at The Jikei University Hospital between 2016 and 2022. Primary endpoint was the rate of aneurysm sac shrinkage. Secondary endpoints were procedure time, radiation exposure, technical and clinical success rates, occurrence of T2EL, and freedom from reintervention or aneurysm-related death. RESULTS: Of 406 patients who underwent EVAR for AAAs, CFT was utilized in 56 (CFT group) and SBE in 35 (SBE group); all 91 patients were included in this study. There were no differences in patient demographics between groups, but there were differences in patency rate of the inferior mesenteric artery and absent intraluminal thrombus. The technical success rate per target vessel in the CFT and SBE group was 97.8% and 91.8%, and the clinical success rate was 91.0% and 100%, respectively. The median procedure time was shorter for CFT than for SBE: CFT, 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-14) minutes vs SBE, 25 (IQR, 18.5-45) minutes; P < .05), and median radiation exposure was lower for CFT than for SBE (CFT, 1455 (IQR, 840-2634) mGy vs SBE, 2353 (IQR, 1552-3586) mGy; P < .05). During the median follow-up of 25 months (IQR, 12.5-47 months), sac shrinkage occurred at similar rates in both groups (CFT, 37.5% vs SBE, 40.0%; P = .812), and there were no differences in freedom from reintervention (CFT, 96.2% and 91.4% at 12 and 36 months vs SBE, 100% and 89.5% at 12 and 36 months; log-rank P = .761) and freedom from aneurysm-related death (100% at 36 months in both groups; log-rank P = .440). The odds ratio of CFT vs SBE for sac regression was calculated by adjusting for inferior mesenteric artery patency and absent intraluminal thrombus, resulting in no statistical significance (odds ratio, 1.231; 95% confidence interval, 0.486-3.122). CONCLUSIONS: CFT is feasible with a shorter procedure time and lower radiation exposure than SBE and comparable mid-term outcomes, including sac shrinkage rate, compared with SBE. We believe that CFT, if anatomically suitable, is an alternative to SBE for the prevention of T2EL during EVAR.

Surgical Treatment for Sac Expansion Caused by Type II Endoleaks after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms/Iliac Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the outcomes of open surgery techniques involving sacotomy and suturing of the feeding vessels in patients with aneurysm sac expansion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Fourteen consecutive patients treated with sacotomy and suturing of feeding vessels for expanding aneurysm sacs with type II endoleaks following EVAR, between January 2018 and December 2022, were retrospectively included. All patients underwent preoperative digital subtraction angiography, and attempts were made to embolize the thick feeding vessels to reduce intraoperative bleeding. Age, sex, comorbidities, clinical presentation, aneurysm sac increase, morbidity, mortality, and follow-up were recorded. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 72.89 ± 5.13 years old, and 13 (92.9%) patients were male. The sac size at the time of the open procedure was 107.89 ± 22.58 mm, and the extent of sac growth at the time of the open procedure was 37.50 ± 18.29 mm. The initial technical success rate of laparotomy and open ligation of the culprit arteries causing type II endoleaks was 92.9% (13/14). Among the patients, 5 (35.7%) had been treated with interventional embolization before the open procedure. One endograft was removed and replaced by a bifurcated Dacron graft because of distal dislocation in one patient. All patients recovered, and no deaths were recorded postoperatively. No patients had an eventful postoperative course or any subsequent graft-related complications during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Open surgical repair involving sacotomy and suturing of the feeding vessels appeared to have good outcomes in the treatment of patients with aneurysm sac expansion caused by type II endoleaks after EVAR. Preoperative embolization of feeding vessels can thus effectively reduce intraoperative bleeding.

Efficacy of Sac Coil Embolization in Endovascular Aortic Repair for Sac Shrinkage in Patients at a High Risk of Type II Endoleak from Lumbar Arteries.

BACKGROUND: In endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), preemptive embolization of sac branch vessels is effective in preventing postoperative type II endoleak (T2EL). However, this technique has not been widely adopted especially for lumbar arteries (LAs) because of technical difficulties and time constraints. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of nonselective sac coil embolization, which is a simpler surgical method, in postoperative sac shrinkage for patients at a high risk of T2EL from LAs. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 76 patients who underwent elective EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm with 4 or more patent LAs or at least 1 patent LA of ≥2 mm at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2022. The patients who underwent sac coil embolization were included in Group Ⅰ (n = 20), and the others were divided into 2 groups: those with an inferior mesenteric artery that was originally occluded or embolized by coils or stent graft bodies (Group Ⅱ, n = 21), and those without that (Group Ⅲ, n = 35). In Group Ⅰ, 0.035-inch coils were inserted into the sac after complete stent graft deployment. The cumulative incidence of sac shrinkage (≥5 mm) was compared between the groups. Further, univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to determine the predictors of sac shrinkage. RESULTS: Sac shrinkage (≥5 mm) was observed more frequently in Group Ⅰ (50%) than in Group Ⅱ (19%) and Group Ⅲ (17%) (P = 0.052 and 0.043, respectively). The cumulative incidence of sac shrinkage was significantly higher in Group Ⅰ than in Group Ⅱ (log-rank P = 0.039) and Group Ⅲ (log-rank P = 0.024). Multivariable Cox regression analyses revealed that sac embolization was a significant predictor of sac shrinkage (hazard ratio, 4.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-10.8; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Nonselective sac coil embolization in EVAR is potentially effective for sac shrinkage in the early postoperative phase in patients at high risk of T2EL from LAs. This simple procedure may improve prognosis after EVAR.

Injection of n-Butyl-2-Cyanoacrylate into the Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Sac during Endovascular Aortic Repair to Prevent Type II Endoleaks Caused by Lumbar Arteries.

PURPOSE: To evaluate midterm results of whether the strategy to occlude target lumbar arteries using n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (nBCA) injection during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reduced the incidence of Type II endoleak (T2EL) after EVAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2013 and 2020, 187 patients underwent EVAR; 106 in the treatment group received nBCA injection during EVAR, whereas 81 in the historical control group did not. The incidence of T2EL at 7 days, need for reintervention, and post-EVAR aneurysmal shrinkage were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Between the treatment group and the control group, significant differences were achieved in the incidence of T2EL (2.8% vs 28.4%; P < .0001) and decreased aneurysmal diameter was observed at 1 year after EVAR (-5.2 vs -3.8 mm; P = .034). In multivariate analysis, nBCA injection (odds ratio [OR], 0.04; P = .001) and younger age (OR, 0.92; P = .036) were significantly associated with a reduced incidence of T2EL. As a possible adverse event associated with nBCA injection, 2 cases of transient lower-limb motor dysfunction (1.9%) were observed. Propensity score analysis revealed that the treatment group had a significantly lower incidence of T2EL than that in the control group (P = .0002) even though there was no difference in the incidence of inferior mesenteric artery coil embolization between the groups. The survival rate without aneurysm sac enlargement (100.0% vs 69.8%; P = .014) and the reintervention-free rate (100.0% vs 63.1%; P = .034) in the treatment group were significantly higher than those in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant nBCA injection can provide durable EVAR without T2EL, as supported by the avoidance of reintervention associated with aneurysm sac enlargement.

Endovascular aortic repair with sac embolization for the prevention of type II endoleaks (the EVAR-SE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled multicentre study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Beyond a certain threshold diameter, abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are to be treated by open surgical or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). In a quarter of patients who undergo EVAR, inversion of blood flow in the inferior mesenteric artery or lumbar arteries may lead to type II endoleak (T2EL), which is associated with complications (e.g. AAA growth, secondary type I endoleak, rupture). As secondary interventions to treat T2EL often fail and may be highly invasive, prevention of T2EL is desirable. The present study aims to assess the efficacy of sac embolization (SE) with metal coils during EVAR to prevent T2EL in patients at high risk. METHODS: Over a 24-month recruitment period, a total of 100 patients undergoing EVAR in four vascular centres (i.e. Klinikum rechts der Isar of the Technical University of Munich, University Hospital Augsburg, University Hospital Dresden, St. Joseph's Hospital Wiesbaden) are to be included in the present study. Patients at high risk for T2EL (i.e. ≥ 5 efferent vessels covered by endograft or aneurysmal thrombus volume <40%) are randomized to one group receiving standard EVAR and another group receiving EVAR with SE. Follow-up assessments postoperatively, after 30 days, and 6 months involve contrast-enhanced ultrasound scans (CEUS) and after 12 months an additional computed tomography angiography (CTA) scan. The presence of T2EL detected by CEUS or CTA after 12 months is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints comprise quality of life (quantified by the SF-36 questionnaire), reintervention rate, occurrence of type I/III endoleak, aortic rupture, death, alteration of aneurysm volume, or diameter. Standardized evaluation of CTA scans happens through a core lab. The study will be terminated after the final follow-up visit of the ultimate patient. DISCUSSION: Although preexisting studies repeatedly indicated a beneficial effect of SE on T2EL rates after EVAR, patient relevant outcomes have not been assessed until now. The present study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to assess the impact of SE on quality of life. Further unique features include employment of easily assessable high-risk criteria, a contemporary follow-up protocol, and approval to use any commercially available coil material. Overcoming limitations of previous studies might help SE to be implemented in daily practice and to enhance patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05665101. Registered on 23 December 2022.

Initial two-day blood pressure management after endovascular aneurysm repair improves midterm outcomes by reducing the incidence of early type II endoleak.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate midterm outcomes of our novel strategy of postoperative initial 2-day blood pressure management (BPM) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for the prevention of subsequent type II endoleak (T2EL) in a single-center series. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2014, 137 patients who underwent EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were reviewed. Starting from 2013, the mean blood pressure was maintained between 75 and 90 mmHg for the initial 24 hours after EVAR followed by systolic pressure controlled below 120 mmHg during the next 24 hours in the treatment group (n = 76). The incidence of T2EL detected at 7 days, reintervention, and AAA sac diameter up to 5 years after EVAR were compared with those of the control group comprising of 60 consecutive patients who underwent standard EVAR without BPM prior to 2013. RESULTS: Between the treatment group and the control group, significant differences were achieved in the incidence of T2EL at 7 days (19.7% vs 40.0%; P = .009), a mean decrease of AAA sac diameter at 1-year (-5.1 ± 4.9 vs -2.2 ± 6.7 mm; P = .013) and 2-year (-5.4 ± 7.7 vs -1.7 ± 10.8 mm; P = .045). In addition, there was a significant decrease in the incidence of T2EL detected at 7 days with the use of the Gore Excluder with 22.7% in the treatment group vs 80.0% in the control group (P < .001), which resulted in a significant decrease in the aneurysm sac diameter up to 4 years after EVAR. Survival rate without AAA sac enlargement at 5 years after EVAR (83.0% vs 70.0%; P = .021) in the treatment group was significantly higher than that of the control group, whereas no significant differences were observed in the freedom rates of reintervention, T2EL-related reintervention, and all-cause mortality between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative initial 2-day BPM had a preventive effect on AAA sac enlargement until midterm periods, by reducing the incidence of T2EL at 7 days after EVAR. The usage of Gore Excluder under BPM was especially associated with sustained positive effects until the midterm follow-up.

Midterm Outcomes of Primary and Secondary Use of an Endoanchor System for Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety, technical success, and midterm outcomes of endoanchor (Heli-FX, Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) deployment in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or abdominal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-institution, retrospective study of all endoanchor procedures was performed from February 1, 2017 to March 30, 2021. All procedures were performed percutaneously by interventional radiologists. Clinical information and outcome data were retrieved from electronic medical records. Fifty patients (14% females, n = 7; 86% males, n = 43; median age, 79 years [range, 56-93 years]) underwent Endoanchor procedures, with 349 Endoanchors implanted; 33 procedures were primary deployments (at initial stent deployment) and 17 were secondary deployments (previous stent deployment). For the primary group (4 TEVARs and 29 EVARs), indications were prophylactic (n = 30), hostile neck (n = 28), hostile distal landing zone (n = 2), and intraprocedural type 1a endoleaks (n = 3). For the secondary group (4 TEVARs and 13 EVARs), indications were graft migration (n = 8), seal zone expansion without proven endoleak (n = 7) (proximal [n = 4] or distal seal [n = 3]), and proven type 1a endoleak (n = 2). RESULTS: Median number of endoanchors deployed per procedure was 7 (range, 3-10). Median time to deploy endoanchors was 22 minutes (range, 8-46 minutes). The technical success rate of Endoanchor was 99.7% (348/349). The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. The overall adverse event rate was 6% (n = 3). Reinterventions were performed in 12% of patients (n = 6). Median follow-up was 38 months (range, 2-71 months). Overall survival at 1 and 3 years was 95% and 85%, respectively. Overall freedom from type 1a endoleak at 1 and 3 years was 96% and 93%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Endoanchor procedures are safe with excellent technical success rate and good midterm clinical outcomes.

Prophylactic Perigraft Arterial Sac Embolization During EVAR: Minimizing Type II Endoleaks and Improving Sac Regression.

BACKGROUND: Type II endoleaks (ELII) are the most common complication following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Persistent ELII require continual surveillance and have been shown to increase the risk of Type I and III endoleaks, sac growth, need for intervention, conversion to open or even rupture, directly or indirectly. These are often difficult to treat following EVAR, and there are limited data regarding the effectiveness of prophylactic treatment of ELII. The aim of this study is to report the midterm outcomes of prophylactic perigraft arterial sac embolization (pPASE) performed in patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS: This is a comparison of 2 elective cohorts of those undergoing EVAR using the Ovation stent graft with and without prophylactic branch vessel and sac embolization. Patients who underwent pPASE at our institution had their data collected in a prospective, institutional review board-approved database. These were compared against the core lab-adjudicated data from the Ovation Investigational Device Exemption trial. Prophylactic PASE was performed at the time of EVAR with thrombin, contrast, and Gelfoam if the lumbar or mesenteric arteries were patent. Endpoints included freedom from ELII, reintervention, sac growth, all-cause mortality, and aneurysm-related mortality. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (13.1%) underwent pPASE, while 238 patients (86.9%) had standard EVAR. Median follow-up was 56 months (33-60 months). The 4-year freedom from ELII estimates were 84% for the pPASE versus 50.7% for the standard EVAR group (P = 0.0002). All aneurysms in the pPASE group remained stable in size or demonstrated regression, whereas aneurysm sac expansion was seen in 10.9% of the standard EVAR group, P = 0.03. At 4 years, mean AAA diameter decreased by 11 mm (95% CI 8-15) in the pPASE group versus 5 mm (95% CI 4-6) for the standard EVAR group, P = 0.0005. There were no differences in the 4-year freedom from all-cause mortality and aneurysm-related mortality. However, the difference in reintervention for ELII trended toward significance (0.0% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.1). On multivariable analysis, pPASE was associated with a 76% reduction in ELII [(95% CI): 0.24 (0.08-0.65), P = 0.005]. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that pPASE in those undergoing EVAR is safe and effective in the prevention of ELII and significantly improves sac regression over standard EVAR while minimizing the need for reintervention.

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of pre-emptive aortic side branch embolization to prevent type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Pre-emptive embolization of aortic side branches may be effective in preventing type II endoleaks (T2EL) based on a previous systematic review and meta-analysis by our group. Data up to 2019 was, however, only based on retrospective studies. The aim of the current study was to update the meta-analysis and evaluate the current evidence on this treatment strategy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed with the same keywords and strategies used in the previous study. The complementary search included all articles published from January 1, 2019, through May 29, 2022. The incidence of aneurysm sac growth was the primary outcome of interest. RESULTS: Four new studies were identified, including one randomized controlled study and one nationwide registry-based retrospective study. Overall, the incidence of sac size enlargement was 4.3% in the embolization group compared with 6.8% in the control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.55), the incidence of T2EL was 19.7% vs 37.4% (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.30-0.47), and the incidence of reintervention for T2EL was 1.2% vs 11.2% (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.06-0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence confirms lower incidence of aneurysm sac growth, T2EL, and reinterventions when pre-emptive embolization of aortic side branches is performed in conjunction with endovascular aneurysm repair, compared with no embolization. However, a higher level of evidence is still required to support a broad change of practice, including data on cost-effectiveness and on the potential effect on rupture.

Pre-Emptive Embolization of the Aneurysm Sac or Aortic Side Branches in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: To investigate outcomes of pre-emptive embolization of the aneurysm sac or aortic side branches in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: The review was reported as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 with a preregistered protocol. Bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL) were searched using subject headings and free text terms. Randomized controlled trials comparing EVAR with versus without embolization were included. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) applying the Mantel-Haenszel method. Continuous outcomes were summarized using mean difference (MD) and 95% CI applying the inverse variance method. The certainty of evidence was appraised with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Trial sequential analysis assumed alpha = 5% and power = 80%. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials were included. No significant difference was found in aneurysm-related mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), overall mortality (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.42-8.13), aneurysm rupture (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), type II endoleak-related reintervention (RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.06), procedure time (MD 20.12, 95% CI -11.54 to 51.77), or fluoroscopy time (MD 11.17, 95% CI -11.22 to 33.56). Patients with pre-emptive embolization had significantly lower odds of type II endoleak (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.78) and sac expansion (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.52). The risk of bias was high for all outcomes. The certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes, except for type II endoleak, for which it was low. Trial sequential analysis showed an inconclusive result for overall mortality and type II endoleak-related reintervention but confirmed the advantage of embolization in reducing type II endoleak and sac expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Limited, low certainty data suggest pre-emptive embolization confers no clinical benefits in EVAR.

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Shrinkage up to 2 Years Following Endovascular Repair with PEmbolization for Preventing Type 2 Endoleak: A Retrospective Single Center Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of preemptive embolization of aneurysm side branches that cause type 2 endoleak (T2EL). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in our facility between April 2009 and April 2019. All the patients underwent the preemptive embolization for preventing T2EL since April 2014. The patients were divided into the nonembolization group (between April 2009 and May 2014) or the embolization group (between April 2014 and April 2019). We used a support wire to improve a success rate of the preemptive embolization. The aneurysm sac shrinkage (≧5 mm), freedom from all-cause death and aneurysm-related death, T2EL-related reinterventions, aneurysm sac enlargement (≧5 mm), and complications related to the endovascular procedure were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Two-hundred patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm were included. They were divided into the nonembolization group (N = 103) and the embolization group (N = 97). We successfully embolized 89% of all the patent aneurysm side branches in the embolization group. The characteristics of the 2 groups were similar except for hypertension, patent lumbar arteries, and the use of Zenith, Excluder, and Endurant. The preemptive embolization group showed better aneurysm sac shrinkage (73% vs. 42%; P < 0.0001), no aneurysm sac enlargement (0% vs. 5%; P < 0.05), and lower T2EL-related reintervention rate (hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.0061-0.60; P < 0.01) up to 2 years after EVAR. There were no significant differences in freedom from all-cause death, aneurysm-related death, and complications between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed the high success rate of preemptive embolization of aneurysm side branches resulting in better anatomical changes in the aneurysm sac and lower T2EL-related intervention rate in the embolization group up to 2 years after EVAR.

Early- and Mid-Term Results of Abdominal Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Using an Aortic Cuff Prior to the Main Body to Prevent Type II Endoleaks.

PURPOSE: Postoperatively persistent type II endoleaks (T2ELs) in abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are known risk factors for long-term aneurysm enlargement. Therefore, various measures have been proposed to prevent T2ELs. Notably, the Kilt technique, which can be used in patients with dumbbell-shaped morphology, employs an aortic cuff deployed in the distal seal zone before the main body. Although previous studies have successfully applied this technique for preventing T2ELs, the mid- and long-term outcomes remain unclear. This study aimed to report the early- to mid-term outcomes in cases where an aortic cuff technique was used to prevent T2ELs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective single-center study analyzed 9 patients (mean age, 79 years; range, 69-88 years; 8 men) with abdominal aortic aneurysms. All patients underwent EVAR using an aortic cuff to prevent T2ELs. The primary end points were technical success (successful deployment) and clinical success (no T2ELs). Secondary end points included morbidity, reintervention, and aortic remodeling during follow-up. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100%. There were no intraprocedural or postoperative complications. No deaths or reinterventions occurred. Postoperative computed tomography showed no endoleaks in 6 patients, while T2ELs from the lumbar artery outside the aortic cuff deployment range were noted in 3 patients. However, no T2ELs were observed in the artery in the aortic cuff deployment range in any patient. The average number of successfully occluded arteries was 4.2 (range, 2-8). All patients had follow-up >6 (mean, 18.6; range, 6-36) months. Aneurysm sac shrinkage occurred in 5 patients during the follow-up period, whereas aneurysm size was stable in 3 patients. In contrast, only 1 patient showed transient dilation of the aneurysm sac enlargement; however, this dilation remained unchanged even after 1.5 years. CONCLUSION: The aortic cuff technique is a favorable endovascular method for preventing T2ELs in EVAR. The present study showed that a single aortic cuff could easily and reliably occlude arteries branched from the aneurysm sac.

Preliminary outcomes of the LifeStream balloon-expandable stentgraft in Zenith Iliac branch device to preserve pelvic circulation: A Korean multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate early outcomes of aortoiliac or isolated iliac artery aneurysm repair using the Zenith® Bifurcated Iliac Side (ZBIS) stent graft combined with the LifeStream™ Balloon Expandable Vascular Covered Stent as a bridging stentgraft. METHODS: Between August 2018 and February 2020, 38 patients (37 male, mean age 72.7 years) received 46 LifeStream stents in conjunction with 38 ZBIS stent grafts to bridge hypogastric arteries for aneurysm repair in six university hospitals in Korea. The primary outcomes were technical success rate and procedure-related complications. Secondary outcomes were bridging stent graft patency and re-intervention. RESULTS: All procedures were performed as elective standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and unilateral iliac branch device (IBD). Mean follow-up was 13.1 months, and patient overall survival rate was 96.7%. Technical success rate was 76.3% (n = 29). Causes of failure included seven total endoleaks; six type Ic and one type IIIc from the IBD junction, one unintentional IIA coverage, and one failure to deploy the IIA stent graft. Procedure-related complications occurred in two patients: one LifeStream migration and one ZBIS stent graft migration. Overall patency rates for the LifeStream and ZBIS stents were 97.4% and 97.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This multicenter preliminary experience with the LifeStream™ Balloon Expandable Vascular Covered Stent in IBD demonstrated good patency; however, an unexpectedly high rate of type Ic endoleaks was observed. Combined use of the LifeStream stent with the ZBIS stent graft is safe and feasible to preserve pelvic circulation with good patency and a low rate of device-related reintervention.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Oral Tranexamic Acid Intervention for the Prevention of Type II Endoleak after Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate tranexamic acid (TA) for the prevention of type II endoleak (EL2) at a high level of evidence by a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) between May 2017 and January 2020 were included. Patients in the TA group were given 750 mg of TA daily for a month after EVAR. The incidence of EL2, blood coagulation/fibrinolytic ability, and changes in aneurysm diameter were compared between two groups. RESULT: On the 7th day after EVAR, EL2 was found in 14 patients (34.1%) in the TA group and in 7 patients (15.9%) in the non-TA group. It was also found in 12 patients (29.3%) in the TA group and 6 patients (13.6%) in the non-TA group at 1 month after EVAR. There was no significant difference in the incidence of EL2 between the two groups (p = 0.051, 0.08). Blood tests revealed that fibrin degradation product and D-dimer were significantly suppressed in the TA group, there was no significant difference in the change of diameter regardless of the TA intake. CONCLUSION: This study proved anti-fibrinolytic effect of the TA, but it alone had not enough power to decrease EL2 after EVAR.

Prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization is associated with improved sac regression in patients undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Type II endoleaks (T2Es), often identified after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), have been associated with late endograft failure and secondary rupture. The number and size of the patent aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels (ie, the inferior mesenteric, lumbar, and accessory renal arteries) have been implicated as known risk factors for persistent T2Es. Given the technical challenges associated with post-EVAR embolization, prophylactic embolization of aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessels has been advocated to prevent T2Es; however, the evidence available at present is limited. We sought to examine the effects of concomitant prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessel embolization in patients undergoing EVAR. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years included in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database who had undergone elective EVAR for intact aneurysms between January 2009 and November 2020 were included in the present study. Patients with a history of prior aortic repair and those without available follow-up data were excluded. The patient demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed by group: EVAR alone vs EVAR with prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization (emboEVAR). The outcomes of interest were the in-hospital postoperative complication rates, incidence of aneurysmal sac regression (≥5 mm) and T2Es, and reintervention rates during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 15,060 patients were included. Of these patients, 272 had undergone emboEVAR and 14,788 had undergone EVAR alone. No significant differences were found between the two groups in age, comorbidities, or anatomic characteristics, including the mean maximum preoperative aortic diameter (5.5 vs 5.6 cm; P = .48). emboEVAR was associated with significantly longer procedural times (148 vs 124 minutes; P < .0001), prolonged fluoroscopy times (32 vs 23 minutes; P < .0001), increased contrast use (105 vs 91 mL; P < .0001), without a significant reduction in T2Es at case completion (17.7% vs 16.3%; P = .54). The incidence of postoperative complications (3.7% vs 4.6%; P = .56), index hospitalization reintervention rates (0.7% vs 1.3%; P = .59), length of stay (1.8 vs 2 days; P = .75), and 30-day mortality (0% vs 0%; P = 1.00) were similar between the two groups. At mid-term follow-up (14.6 ± 6.2 months), the emboEVAR group had a significantly greater mean reduction in the maximum aortic diameter (0.69 vs 0.54 cm; P = .006), with a greater proportion experiencing sac regression of ≥5 mm (53.5% vs 48.7%). The reintervention rates were similar between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, prophylactic aortic aneurysm sac outflow vessel embolization (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.74; P = .024) was a significant independent predictor of sac regression. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization can be performed safely for patients with intact aortic aneurysms undergoing elective EVAR without significant associated perioperative morbidity or mortality. emboEVAR was associated with significant sac regression compared with EVAR alone at mid-term follow-up. Although no decrease was found in the incidence of T2Es, this technique shows promise, and future efforts should focus on identifying a subset of aneurysm and outflow branch characteristics that will benefit from concomitant selective vs complete prophylactic sac outflow vessel embolization.