How to treat type 1b endoleakage-extension, fEVAR, bEVAR, or open repair.

Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair has been well described in the literature as a treatment for a wide range of thoracic aortic pathologies. As with any intervention, there remains a risk of an unfavorable outcome, including endoleak, a term used to describe unexpected blood flow between the stent-graft and the wall of the excluded aneurysm. Endoleaks cause pressurized enlargement of the aneurysmal sac and may lead to catastrophic outcomes such as rupture and death. Type 1b endoleak represents a distal landing zone that is compromised by retrograde blood flow. Moreover, there is a lack of data on type 1b endoleaks and its management options. With the increase in emerging endovascular techniques and technologies, endoleaks are more frequent. However, the management of endoleaks is not standardized among different centers. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of type 1b endoleaks after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair, current management options, and our experience.

Endovascular management for peripheral arterial trauma: The new norm?

BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy is well studied in atraumatic conditions; and there appears to be a growing interest in its application to traumatic injuries. The objective of this study is to compare open and endovascular techniques in the management of peripheral arterial trauma. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center sustaining injuries to the subclavian, axillary, superficial femoral, and popliteal arteries. Demographics, surgical interventions, complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated in patients requiring open or endovascular repair between 2009 and 2015. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients with 70 total arterial injuries were identified. There were 10 subclavian, 14 axillary, 15 superficial femoral, and 31 popliteal artery injuries. Endovascular (n=20) compared to open repairs (n=50) were more commonly performed: by vascular surgeons (90% vs. 54%, p=0.01); in older patients (median age: 38 years vs. 25, p=0.01); primarily involving upper extremity injuries (60% vs. 24%, p=0.01). Furthermore, endovascular repairs less commonly required fasciotomy (15% vs. 46%, p=0.03) and trended towards lower transfusion requirements (50% vs. 77%, p=0.06). Patients undergoing open repair had lower pre-hospital systolic blood pressures (110 vs. 120, p=0.03) and lower initial hematocrit (31.5 vs. 36.2, p=0.02). However, outcomes between groups were trending higher in the endovascular group with respect to limb salvage rates at discharge (94% vs. 89%), median length of stay (14days vs. 9), and median follow-up (288days vs. 92) compared to the open group, but the data were not statistically significant. There was increasing utilization of endovascular repair over time (7% of total procedures in 2009; 50% in 2014). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, endovascular and open techniques were not statistically different in early outcomes. Endovascular therapy appears to provide some advantage when it comes to: challenging anatomy, decreasing blood product utilization, and minimizing physiologic derangement. However, patients with injuries resulting in free hemorrhage or significant external blood loss may still be best served with open repair. Despite this, given the increasing use of endovascular techniques, close collaboration is needed between trauma and endovascular specialists to properly select the optimal management for patients with peripheral arterial trauma.