Percutaneous contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided transabdominal sac embolization is an effective technique for treating complicated type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we evaluated and compared the outcomes of transarterial embolization with those of percutaneous contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided transabdominal sac embolization (PUSE) for type II endoleaks (T2ELs). METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients who had undergone T2EL embolization between January 2015 and December 2020 at our center. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the embolization approach: PUSE vs transarterial. Freedom from aneurysm growth, safety, immediate technical success, freedom from persistent T2ELs, and the repeat embolization rate were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients and 28 embolization procedures (PUSE, n = 16; transarterial embolization, n = 12) were examined. Both the fluoroscopic time (13.3 ± 3.2 minutes vs 35.0 ± 7.0 minutes; P < .001) and the procedural time (84.9 ± 8.4 minutes vs 117.1 ± 14.8 minutes; P < .001) were significantly shorter in the PUSE group than in the transarterial group. After the embolization procedure, the patients were followed up for a mean duration of 24.7 ± 14.9 months for the PUSE group and 35.9 ± 21.1 months for the transarterial group (P = .1323). Five patients in the transarterial group had undergone unsuccessful embolization, with success in 7 of the 12 patients in the transarterial group and all 16 patients in the PUSE group (P = .0081). Failure had resulted from failed transarterial access or a recurrent T2EL. Three of the five patients had undergone subsequent PUSE during follow-up. No patient in the PUSE group had experienced sac expansion compared with four patients in the transarterial group (P = .0242). Similarly, no patient in the PUSE group had developed a newly discovered T2EL vs four patients in the transarterial group (P = .0242). Thus, the outcomes were markedly better for the PUSE group than were those for the transarterial group. A major procedure-related complication (abdominal abscess) occurred in one patient in the transarterial group. CONCLUSIONS: PUSE is safe and effective for managing T2ELs. It yields better outcomes in terms of preventing aneurysm growth, decreasing the incidence of repeat embolization and complications, minimizing the recurrence of T2ELs, and reducing the fluoroscopic and procedural times. We, thus, regard it as the preferred approach for the management of T2ELs.