[Partial Arch Repair for Reruptured Aortic Arch Aneurysm due to Endoleak After 2-debranching Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair:Report of a Case].

A 67-year-old male was admitted to our hospital for sudden onset chest pain and hoarseness. He underwent 2-debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for a ruptured aortic arch aneurysm four years prior. However, computed tomography (CT) revealed an aneurysmal rerupture due to a typeⅠa endoleak. We performed partial arch replacement with uncovered stent removal under intermittent hypothermic circulatory arrest. We needed to be more careful than usual open heart surgery because a non-anatomical bypass procedure was performed. The surgery was successful without any major complications, and the patient was discharged on the 23th postoperative day. Reinterventions post-endovascular repair are sometimes difficult;thus, open surgery could be useful for arch replacement.

Multi-Energy Low-Kiloelectron Volt versus Single-Energy Low-Kilovolt Images for Endoleak Detection at CT Angiography of the Aorta.

Purpose To compare image quality, diagnostic performance, and conspicuity between single-energy and multi-energy images for endoleak detection at CT angiography (CTA) after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods In this single-center prospective randomized controlled trial, individuals undergoing CTA after EVAR between August 2020 and May 2022 were allocated to imaging using either low-kilovolt single-energy images (SEI; 80 kV, group A) or low-kiloelectron volt virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) at 40 and 50 keV from multi-energy CT (80/Sn150 kV, group B). Scan protocols were dose matched (volume CT dose index: mean, 4.5 mGy ± 1.8 [SD] vs 4.7 mGy ± 1.3, P = .41). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured. Two expert radiologists established the reference standard for the presence of endoleaks. Detection and conspicuity of endoleaks and subjective image quality were assessed by two different blinded radiologists. Interreader agreement was calculated. Nonparametric statistical tests were used. Results A total of 125 participants (mean age, 76 years ± 8; 103 men) were allocated to groups A (n = 64) and B (n = 61). CNR was significantly lower for 40-keV VMI (mean, 19.1; P = .048) and 50-keV VMI (mean, 16.8; P < .001) as compared with SEI (mean, 22.2). In total, 45 endoleaks were present (A: 23 vs B: 22). Sensitivity for endoleak detection was higher for SEI (82.6%, 19 of 23; P = .88) and 50-keV VMI (81.8%, 18 of 22; P = .90) as compared with 40-keV VMI (77.3%, 17 of 22). Specificity was comparable among groups (SEI: 92.7%, 38 of 41; both VMI energies: 92.3%, 35 of 38; P = .99), with an interreader agreement of 1. Conspicuity of endoleaks was comparable between SEI (median, 2.99) and VMI (both energies: median, 2.87; P = .04). Overall subjective image quality was rated significantly higher for SEI (median, 4 [IQR, 4-4) as compared with 40 and 50 keV (both energies: median, 4 [IQR, 3-4]; P < .001). Conclusion SEI demonstrated higher image quality and comparable diagnostic accuracy as compared with 50-keV VMI for endoleak detection at CTA after EVAR. Keywords: Aneurysms, CT, CT Angiography, Vascular, Aorta, Technology Assessment, Multidetector CT, Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms, Endoleaks, Perigraft Leak Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Pre-emptive Aortic Side Branch Embolization during Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Using the Excluder Stent-Graft System: A Prospective Multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre-emptive transcatheter arterial embolization (P-TAE) for aortic side branches (ASBs) to prevent Type 2 endoleaks (EL2) before endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the Excluder stent-graft system (Excluder). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter study, 80 patients (mean age, 79.1 years [SD ± 6.7]; 85.0% were men; mean aneurysmal sac diameter, 48.4 mm [SD ± 7.4]) meeting the eligibility criteria were prospectively enrolled from 9 hospitals. Before EVAR, P-TAE was performed to embolize the patent ASBs originating from the abdominal aortic aneurysm. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) was performed at 1 month and 6 months after EVAR. The primary endpoint was EL2 incidence at 6 months, and the secondary endpoints were aneurysmal sac diameter changes at 6 and 12 months, P-TAE outcomes, adverse events related to P-TAE, reintervention, and aneurysm-related mortality. RESULTS: All patients successfully underwent P-TAE without serious. Coil embolization was successful in 81.6% of ASBs. EL2 incidence at 6 months was identified in 18 of 70 (25.7%) patients. Aneurysmal sac diameter shrinkage (≥5 mm) was observed in 30.0% of patients at 6 months and in 40.9% at 12 months. Only 1 patient required reintervention for EL2 within 1 year of EVAR; aneurysm-related deaths were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: P-TAE for ASBs before EVAR using Excluder is a safe and effective strategy. It aids in achieving early aneurysmal sac shrinkage and reduces EL2 reintervention at 1 year after EVAR.

Local Anesthesia for Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Allows for Accurate Graft Deployment with Durable Results.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthesia (LA) is sparsely used in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) despite short-term benefit, likely secondary to concerns over patient movement preventing accurate endograft deployment. The objective of this study is to examine the association between anesthesia type and endoleak, sac regression, reintervention, and mortality. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all EVAR cases from 2014 to 2022. Patients were included if they underwent percutaneous elective EVAR with anatomical criteria within instructions for use of commercially approved endografts. Multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting was used to determine the association between anesthesia type on the risk of any endoleak noted by intraoperative completion angiogram and sac regression. Multivariable survival analysis with propensity score weighting was used to determine the association between anesthesia type and endoleak at 1 year, long-term reintervention, and mortality. RESULTS: Thirteen thousand nine hundred thirty two EVARs met inclusion criteria: 1,075 (8%) LA and 12,857 (92%) general anesthesia (GA). On completion angiogram, LA was associated with fewer rates of any endoleaks overall (16% vs. 24%, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis with propensity score weighting, LA was associated with similar adjusted odds of any endoleak on intraoperative completion angiogram (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.68) as well as combined type 1a and type 1b endoleaks (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.47-1.09). Follow-up computed tomography imaging at 1 year was available for 4,892 patients, 377 (8%) LA and 4,515 (92%) GA. At 1 year, LA was associated with similar rate of freedom from any endoleaks compared to GA (0.66 [95% CI 0.63-0.69] vs. 0.71 [95% CI 0.70-0.72], P = 0.663) and increased rates of sac regression (50% vs. 45%, P = 0.040). On multivariable analysis with propensity score weighting, LA and GA were associated with similar adjusted odds of sac regression (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.97-1.55). LA and GA had similar rates of endoleak at 1 year (hazard ratio [HR] 0.14, 95% CI 0.63-1.07); however, LA was associated with decreased hazards of combined type 1a and 1b endoleaks at 1 year (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.96). LA and GA had similar adjusted long-term reintervention rate (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44-1.38) and long-term mortality (HR 1.100, 95% CI 079-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: LA is not associated with increased adjusted rates of any endoleak on completion angiogram or at 1-year follow-up compared to GA. LA is associated with decreased adjusted rates of type 1a and type 1b endoleak at 1 year, but similar rates of sac regression, long-term reintervention, and mortality. Concerns for accurate graft deployment should not preclude use of LA and LA should be increasingly considered when deciding on anesthetic type for standard elective EVAR.

Enhanced visualization in endoleak detection through iterative and AI-noise optimized spectral reconstructions.

To assess the image quality parameters of dual-energy computed tomography angiography (DECTA) 40-, and 60 keV virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) combined with deep learning-based image reconstruction model (DLM) and iterative reconstructions (IR). CT scans of 28 post EVAR patients were enrolled. The 60 s delayed phase of DECTA was evaluated. Objective [noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)] and subjective (overall image quality and endoleak conspicuity - 3 blinded readers assessment) image quality analyses were performed. The following reconstructions were evaluated: VMI 40, 60 keV VMI; IR VMI 40, 60 keV; DLM VMI 40, 60 keV. The noise level of the DLM VMI images was approximately 50% lower than that of VMI reconstruction. The highest CNR and SNR values were measured in VMI DLM images. The mean CNR in endoleak in 40 keV was accounted for as 1.83 ± 1.2; 2.07 ± 2.02; 3.6 ± 3.26 in VMI, VMI IR, and VMI DLM, respectively. The DLM algorithm significantly reduced noise and increased lesion conspicuity, resulting in higher objective and subjective image quality compared to other reconstruction techniques. The application of DLM algorithms to low-energy VMIs significantly enhances the diagnostic value of DECTA in evaluating endoleaks. DLM reconstructions surpass traditional VMIs and IR in terms of image quality.

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound after Endovascular Aortic Repair: Supplement and Potential Substitute for CT in Early- and Long-Term Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Endoleaks are the most common complication after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is presently the golden standard for lifelong surveillance after EVAR. Several studies and meta-analyses have shown contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to be a good alternative. The main goal of our study was to further validate the inclusion of CEUS in follow-up examination protocols for the systematic surveillance after EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who had received CEUS as part of their routine surveillance after EVAR at our center was conducted. Detection rate and classification of endoleak types were compared between available postinterventional CTA/magnetic resonance angiography and follow-up CEUS examinations. Last preinterventional CTAs before EVAR served as baselines with focus on potential cofactors such as age, body mass index, maximum aortic aneurysm diameters, endoleak orientation, and distance-to-surface influencing detection rates and classification. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients were included in the analysis. Forty-four endoleaks (43.5% of cases) were detected by either initial CEUS or CTA, mostly type II (37.6% of the included patients). Initial CEUS showed an endoleak sensitivity of 91.2%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 84.6%. No covariate with an influence on the correct classification could be identified either for CEUS or CT. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS should be considered a valid complementary method to CTA in the lifelong surveillance after EVAR. As type II endoleaks seem to be a common early-term, sometimes spontaneously resolving complication that can potentially be missed by CTA, we suggest combined follow-up protocols including CEUS in the early on postinterventional assessment.

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.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Management of Endoleaks Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Endoleaks represent the most common complication after EVAR. Some types are associated with ongoing risk of aneurysm rupture and necessitate long-term surveillance and secondary interventions. PURPOSE: This document, as with all CIRSE Standards of Practice documents, will recommend a reasonable approach to best practices of managing endoleaks. This will include imaging diagnosis, surveillance, indications for intervention, endovascular treatments and their outcomes. Our purpose is to provide recommendations based on up-to-date evidence, updating the guidelines previously published on this topic in 2013. METHODS: The writing group was established by the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee and consisted of clinicians with internationally recognised expertise in endoleak management. The writing group reviewed the existing literature performing a pragmatic evidence search using PubMed to select publications in English and relating to human subjects up to 2023. The final recommendations were formulated through consensus. RESULTS: Endoleaks may compromise durability of the aortic repair, and long-term imaging surveillance is necessary for early detection and correct classification to guide potential re-intervention. The majority of endoleaks that require treatment can be managed using endovascular techniques. This Standards of Practice document provides up-to-date recommendations for the safe management of endoleaks.

One-year follow-up after active aortic aneurysm sac treatment with shape memory polymer devices during endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of treating abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sacs with polyurethane shape memory polymer (SMP) devices during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), using a technique to fully treat the target lumen after endograft placement (aortic flow volume minus the endograft volume). SMP devices self-expand in the sac to form a porous scaffold that supports thrombosis throughout its structure. METHODS: Two identical prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies were conducted in New Zealand and the Netherlands. The study population was adult candidates for elective EVAR of an infrarenal AAA (diameter of ≥55 mm in men and ≥50 mm in women). Key exclusion criteria were an inability to adequately seal a common iliac artery aneurysm, patent sac feeding vessels of >4 mm, and a target lumen volume of <20 mL or >135 mL. Target lumen volumes were estimated by subtracting endograft volumes from preprocedural imaging-based flow lumen volumes. SMP devices were delivered immediately after endograft deployment via a 6F sheath jailed in a bowed position in the sac. The primary efficacy end point was technical success, defined as filling the actual target lumen volume with fully expanded SMP at the completion of the procedure. Secondary efficacy outcome measures during follow-up were the change in sac volume and diameter, rate of type II endoleak and type I or III endoleaks, and the rate of open repair and related reinterventions, with data collection at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year (to date). Baseline sac volumes and diameters for change in sac size analyses were determined from 30-day imaging studies. Baseline and follow-up volumes were normalized by subtraction of the endograft volume. RESULTS: Of 34 patients treated with SMP devices and followed per protocol, 33 patients were evaluable at 1 year. Preprocedural aneurysm volume was 181.4 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 150.7-212.1 mL) and preprocedural aneurysm diameter was 60.8 mm (95% CI, 57.8-63.9 mm). The target lumen volume was 56.3 mL (95% CI, 46.9-65.8 mL). Technical success was 100% and the ratio of SMP fully expanded volume to estimated target lumen volume was 1.4 ± 0.3. Baseline normalized sac volume and diameter were 140.7 mL (95% CI, 126.6-154.9 mL) and 61.0 mm (95% CI, 59.7-62.3 mm). The adjusted mean percentage change in normalized volume at 1 year was -28.8% (95% CI, -35.3 to -22.3%; P < .001). The adjusted mean change in sac diameter at 1 year was -5.9 mm (95% CI, -7.5 to -4.4 mm; P < .001). At 1 year, 81.8% of patients (95% CI, 64.5%-93.0%) achieved a ≥10% decrease in normalized volume and 57.6% of patients (95% CI, 39.2%-74.5%) achieved a ≥5 mm decrease in diameter. No device- or study procedure-related major adverse events occurred through 1 year after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of AAA sacs with SMP devices during EVAR resulted in significant sac volume and diameter regression at 1 year with an acceptable safety profile in this prospective study.

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.

Type II endoleaks after fenestrated/branched endografting for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Persistent type II endoleaks (pEL2s) are not uncommon after endovascular aneurysm repair and their impact on long-term outcomes is well-documented. However, their occurrence and natural history after fenestrated/branched endografting (F/B-EVAR) for juxtarenal and pararenal aneurysms (J/P-AAAs) have been scarcely investigated. Aim of this study was to report incidence, risk factors, and natural history of pEL2 after F/B-EVAR in J/P-AAAs. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2022, all J/P-AAAs undergoing F/B-EVAR were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. EL2 were assessed at the completion angiography, at 30 days and after 6 months as primary outcomes. Preoperative risk factors for pEL2, follow-up survival, freedom from reinterventions (FFR) and aneurysm shrinkage (≥5 mm) were considered as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 132 patients, there were 88 (67%) JAAAs and 44 (33%) PAAAs. Seventeen EL2 (13%) were detected at the completion angiography and 36 (27%) at 30-day computed tomography angiography. The mean follow-up was 28 ± 23 months. Eleven (31%) EL2 sealed spontaneously within 6 months and three new cases were detected, for an overall of 28 pEL2/107 patients (26%) with available radiological follow-up of ≥6 months. Preoperative antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI[, 1-22.1; P = .05), aneurysm thrombus volume of ≤40% and six or more patent aneurysm afferent vessels (odds ratio, 7.2; 95% CI, 1.8-29.1; P = .005) were independent risk factors for pEL2. The estimated 3-year survival was 80%, with no difference between cases with and without pEL2 (78% vs 85%; P = .08). The estimated 3-year FFR was 86%, with no difference between cases with and without pEL2 (81% vs 87%; P = .41). Four cases (3%) of EL2-related reinterventions were performed. In 65 cases (49%), aneurysm shrinkage was detected. pEL2 was an independent risk factor for absence of aneurysm shrinkage during follow-up (hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-8.3; P = .014). Patients without shrinkage had lower follow-up survival (64% vs 86% at 3-year; P = .009) and FFR (74% vs 90% at 3 years; P = .014) than patients with shrinkage. CONCLUSIONS: PEL2 is not infrequent (26%) after F/B-EVAR for J/P-AAAs and is correlated with preoperative antiplatelet therapy, aneurysm thrombus volume of ≤40%, and six or more patent sac afferent vessels. Patients with pEL2 have a diminished aneurysm shrinkage, which is correlated with lower follow-up survival and FFR compared with patients with aneurysm shrinkage.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after semi-conversion with graft preservation for failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes after semi-conversion (open conversion with graft preservation) after failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and semi-conversion failure. Secondary outcomes were 30-day major systemic complications, endoleak recurrence, reinterventions, and overall survival. METHODS: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023421153). All studies reporting the outcomes of semi-conversions for failed EVAR were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. A random effects meta-regression of proportions was conducted using the double arcsine-Tukey transformation, given the frequent zero event rate in the primary outcome. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the review after full text screening. A total of 196 patients underwent semi-conversion at a mean time from EVAR of 47.4 months, 68.9% in an elective setting. Mean age at conversion was 78.1 years, and the main indication was isolated endoleak type II (70.1% of cases). Aortic clamping was not necessary in 92.3% of semi-conversions; the aortic sac was opened in 96.1% of cases; in 93.3% of cases, ligation/suture of one or more culprit arteries were performed; and aortic neck banding was executed in 29.2%. At 30 days from surgery, the pooled mortality and the major systemic complications rates were 5.3% (I2 = 24.9%) and 13.4% (I2 = 54.3%), respectively. At follow-up, endoleak recurred after 12.6% semi-conversions (I2 = 83.2%), and the rate of reinterventions was 7% (I2 = 50.1%); the semi-conversion failure rate was 5.5% (I2 = 54.1%), and the overall survival was 84.6% (I2 = 33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Semi-conversions have acceptable 30-day mortality rates, but the early and mid-term risks of complications, reinterventions, ruptures, and infections are not negligible. This procedure might be an alternative to complete or partial graft explant in patients whom aortic cross-clamping is not ideal.

Intra-Sac Injection of Thrombin During Endovascular Aneurysm Repair to Remedy Type II Endoleak and Promote Sac Shrinkage.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intra-sac thrombin injection to remedy type II endoleaks (T2ELs) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 224 cases abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were treated with EVAR. For the 52 cases of intra-operative type II endoleaks and 8 cases of ruptured AAAs, after the grafts were deployed, thrombin was injected into the aneurysm sac through a preset catheter. The occurrence of endoleaks post-EVAR were followed up with by Computed Tomography (CT) angiogram. The diameter and the volume of the aneurysm sac were also measured. Endpoints included incidence of T2ELs, AAA sac shrinkage and re-intervention rate and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The overall technical success rate was 100%. Fifty-two patients were followed up with for 9-56 (median 24) months. No serious complications were observed during follow-up. The incidence of endoleak was 5.8% (3/52) during follow-up. The maximum diameter of the aneurysm decreased from 61.1 ± 14.2 mm to 53.7 ± 10.6 mm, 47.9 ± 8.3 mm and 43.7 ± 7.2 mm (87.9%, 78.4% and 71.5% of pre-EVAR) at the 6-month, 1-year and 2-year follow-up, respectively (P < .05). The volume of the aneurysm sac shrank from 236.2 ± 136.2 cm3 to 202.6 ± 114.1 cm3, 155.6 ± 68.4 cm3 and 129.7 ± 52.4 cm3 (85.8%, 65.9%, and 54.9% of pre-EVAR) at the 6-month, 1-year and 2-year follow-up, respectively (P < .05). The rate of various endoleaks was 5.8% (3/52) and the re-intervention rate was 1.9% (1/52) in this research. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes show that intra-sac injection of thrombin during EVAR is safe and may be effective in remedying small amount and low-velocity endoleaks and promoting shrinkage of the aneurysm sac.

Image Guidance Techniques and Treatment Approach Optimization in the Management of Type-II Endoleak After Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 3 decades endovascular aortic aneurysm repair emerged as the primary approach for abdominal aortic aneurysm management, however the occurrence of endoleak following endograft implantation imposes a high toll on patients and hospitals alike. The early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of endoleaks is associated with better outcomes, which calls for more advanced imaging and a standardized approach for endoleak diagnosis and management following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Although conventional strategy with non-targeted deployment of coils and embolic material in the aneurysm sac is considered to be the standard approach in many hospitals, it may not prove to be a viable option, given that it affects any further follow-up imaging in the event of sub-optimal therapy and consequent recurrence. METHODS: Based on our tertiary aortic referral center experience we summarize and describe strategies for optimal selection of various treatment approaches for Type-II Endoleak management including endovascular, percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches with particular focus on intraoperative image guidance techniques. RESULTS: After failed conventional endovascular embolization attempt we recommend specific complex type II endoleak management approaches based on the location of the endoleak within the aneurysm sac along the x, y and z axis. A transabdominal or laparoscopic approach enable treatment in endoleaks located in the anterior portion of the sac. Endoleaks in the posterior portion of the sac could be treated using the transcaval or the translumbar approach, depending on whether the endoleak is situated on the left or the right side. Alternative strategies should be considered if patient anatomy does not allow for either transcaval or translumbar approach. The transgraft technique is reserved for endoleaks located in the cranial portion of the sac, while the perigraft approach could present a means of treatment for endoleaks situated in the caudal portion of the aneurysm sac. CONCLUSION: We encourage establishing a patient specific treatment plan in accordance with individual anatomy based on cross sectional imaging modality (time resolved dynamic imaging in selected cases) and intraoperative image guidance to provide a safe and accurate endoleak localization and embolization for patients undergoing type II endoleak treatment.

Long-Term Outcomes of Simple Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Based on the Initial Aortic Diameter.

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the effects of initial abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter on aneurysmal sac expansion/shrinkage, endoleaks, and reintervention postelective simple endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Overall, 228 patients monitored for >1 year after EVAR were analyzed. Male and female participants with initial AAA diameters <55 mm and <50 mm, respectively, composed the small group (group S), while those with initial AAA diameters ≥55 mm (men) and ≥50 mm (women) composed the large group (group L). Aneurysmal sac expansion of 10 mm and/or reintervention during follow-up (composite event) and its related factors were evaluated. RESULTS: The 5-year freedom from composite event rate was significantly higher in group S (92.4 ± 2.8%) than that in group L (79.1 ± 4.9%; P <0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed AAA diameters before EVAR in group S (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.81; P = 0.01) and type II endoleak (T2EL) at discharge (hazard ratio, 2.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-6.20; P <0.01) as factors associated with the composite event. The freedom from composite event rate decreased to 51 ± 13% at 5 years in group L with T2EL. CONCLUSIONS: Group S had high freedom from composite event rate; in group L, the rate decreased to 51% at 5 years with T2EL at discharge.

Two-Stage Endovascular Aneurysm Repair with Preemptive Embolization: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Type II endoleak is the most common complication of endovascular aneurysm repair. Retrograde perfusion from the aneurysmal sac side branch to the aneurysmal sac, including the inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar arteries, is associated with adverse events after endovascular aneurysm repair, such as aneurysm sac enlargement, reintervention, rupture, and abdominal aortic aneurysm-related death. Preemptive embolization of the aneurysmal sac side branch before endovascular aneurysm repair is an effective and safe procedure for preventing type II endoleak and reducing the size of the aneurysmal sac. Since 2019, we have been conducting preemptive embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar arteries. Thus, we intended to work on a two-stage endovascular aneurysm repair in which embolization and endovascular aneurysm repair are performed on separate days, owing to concerns about prolonged operative time and increased contrast media use and radiation exposure from performing endovascular aneurysm repair simultaneously. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a two-stage endovascular aneurysm repair. METHODS: This retrospective study included 114 cases of endovascular aneurysm repair (95 men and 19 women) for AAA performed at our hospital between January 2019 and December 2022. Inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar artery embolization were performed simultaneously with endovascular aneurysm repair (simultaneous group) in 49 cases, and two-stage embolization was performed (two-stage group) in 30 cases. The primary endpoints included the occurrence of T2EL during follow-up and the embolization rate of the IMA or LAs. RESULTS: Type II endoleak did not occur in the two-stage group (follow-up period: 35 ± 6.2 months), whereas it was observed in 8.2% of patients more than 6 months after EVAR in the simultaneous group (follow-up period: 28 ± 5.5 months). While the total operative time was 340 ± 111.2 min in the simultaneous group, the durations for embolization and endovascular aneurysm repair in the two-stage group were 169 ± 35.5 min and 135.0 ± 26.4 min (total time 304 ± 31.2 min, P = 0.21), respectively, indicating a reduction in the total time required for the 2 techniques. The total amounts of contrast media used in the simultaneous and two-stage groups were 200.0 ± 179.2 mL and 182.0 ± 51.2 mL (P = 0.42), respectively, and the corresponding total radiation doses were 2502.4 ± 690.5 mGy and 2114.6 ± 351.2 mGy (P = 0.28), respectively, showing a decrease in both in the two-stage group. The lumbar artery embolization rates were 74.3% and 87.9% (P < 0.01) in the simultaneous and two-stage groups, respectively, indicating a significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage endovascular aneurysm repair with preemptive embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar arteries may be an effective strategy for reducing type II endoleak occurrence, overall operative time, contrast use, and overall radiation exposure.