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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fate of primary determinate and indeterminate target vessel endoleaks after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of primary determinate and indeterminate target vessel endoleaks (TVELs) after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR). METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study (2014-2023) on F-BEVAR for thoracoabdominal (TAAAs) or pararenal aortic aneurysms (PRAAs). TVELs were classified as "primary" if present at the first postoperative computed tomography angiogram. Endoleaks were defined "determinate" (dELs) if the cause (type Ic or IIIc) and implicated target vessel were identifiable and "indeterminate" (iELs) if contrast enhancement was detectable at the level of fenestrations/branches without any evident source. Endoleaks involving multiple inflows (type II and target vessels) were defined as "complex" (cELs). Endpoints were endoleak spontaneous resolution, 1-year aneurysm sac failure to regress (>5 mm diameter decrease), and 4-year endoleak-related secondary interventions. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression were used for the analysis. RESULTS: There were 142 patients with JRAAs/PRAAs (n = 85; 60%) or TAAAs (n = 57; 40%), with 513 target arteries incorporated through a fenestration (n = 294; 57%) or directional branch (n = 219; 43%). Fifty-nine primary TVELs (12%) were identified in 35 patients (25%), a dEL in 20 patients (14%) and iEL in 15 (11%); 22 (15%) had a determinate or indeterminate cEL. Overall spontaneous resolution rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51%-87%) at 4 years. cELs (odds ratio [OR], 5.00; 95% CI, 1.10-49.4; P < .001) and iELs after BEVAR (OR, 9.43; 95% CI, 3.41-56.4; P = .002) were more likely to persist >6 months, and persistent forms were associated with sac failure to regress at 1 year (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.03-12.59; P = .040). Overall freedom from endoleak-related reinterventions was 85% (95% CI, 79%-92%) at 4 years, 92% (95% CI, 87%-97%) for those without primary TVELs and 62% (95% CI, 46%-84%) for those with any primary TVEL (P < .001). In particular, cELs (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.4-18.81; P = .020) were associated with an increased need for reintervention. In case a secondary intervention was needed, iEL or cEL had an increased risk for multiple secondary procedures (hazard ratio, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.22-10.34; P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: Primary TVELs are frequent after F-BEVAR, and a clear characterization of the endoleak source by computed tomography angiogram is not possible in 40% of patients. Most primary TVELs spontaneously resolve, but during follow-up, patients with any primary TVEL experience a worsened freedom from endoleak-related reinterventions that is mostly driven by persistence of cELs and post-BEVAR iELs. Multiple secondary procedures may be required in case of iELs or cELs.

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.

Reducing aneurysm sac growth and secondary interventions following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair by preemptive coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar arteries.

OBJECTIVE: Type II endoleak (EL-2) is the most common complication following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), leading to continued sac growth and potential rupture. In this study, we examined the association between patency of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and lumbar arteries (LAs) with respect to sac growth. The effect of preemptive embolization of the IMA and/or LAs on the need for secondary interventions for sac growth post-EVAR was also evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on consecutive patients who underwent EVAR for non-ruptured, infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) from January 2012 to December 2020. A select group of patients underwent preemptive embolization of the IMA and/or LA. Patients with any types I, III, or IV endoleaks were excluded. Patency of the IMA and LA on preoperative computed tomography angiogram (CTA) was evaluated on TeraRecon workstation. All secondary interventions to treat EL-2 were recorded. Sac growth was defined as centerline axial diameter increase of ≥5 mm on follow-up CTA. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients (mean age, 74 ± 8.5 years; 83.7% male) underwent EVAR. Ninety-nine patients had preemptive embolization of the IMA and/or LA. Mean follow-up of the cohort was 59.3 ± 30.5 months. Thirty-six patients (12%) demonstrated sac growth on follow-up; 12 of these (33.3%) had preemptive embolization. The median time until detection of sac growth was 28.8 months (interquartile range, 15.2-46.5 months), with a mean growth of 10.1 ± 6.4 mm. Sac growth was significantly associated with presence of EL-2: 27 of 36 (75%) with EL-2 vs 9 of 36 (25%) without EL-2 (P < .001). Patients with sac growth had a higher mean total number (2.6 ± 1.5) of patent lower LAs (L3, L4) compared with those without (2.0 ± 1.4; P = .03). Patency of L1, L2, and L3 LAs were not associated with sac growth. However, patency of at least one L4 LA was significantly associated with sac growth (14.8% vs 7.7%; P = .04). The highest incidence of sac growth (17.6%) was seen when both IMA and L4 LA were patent; significantly different from the lowest incidence (5.3%) when both were occluded preoperatively (P = .018). Preemptive coiling of the IMA and/or LA significantly reduced the need for post-EVAR secondary intervention for sac growth. Freedom from post-EVAR secondary intervention was achieved in 92 of 99 (92.9%) pre-EVAR coiled patients vs 163 of 201 (81.5%) patients who did not undergo pre-EVAR coiling (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Preemptive coil embolization of the IMA and LAs, especially L4 LA, reduces the need for secondary interventions for sac growth, potentially improving the long-term durability of EVAR.

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.

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.

Prevalence of type II endoleak after elective endovascular aneurysm repair with polytetrafluoroethylene- or polyester-based endografts.

OBJECTIVE: Type II endoleak is the most frequent complication after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair. Polytetrafluoroethylene and polyester (PE) are the two most commonly used graft materials in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) devices. Biological properties of the material might influence the appearance and persistence of type II endoleak (T2EL). Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate potential differences in the prevalence of T2EL after EVAR between polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and PE endografts in patients electively treated for an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective, observational study was conducted between January 2011 and January 2022. Preoperative, procedural, and follow-up data were derived from electronic health records. Imaging included computed tomography scans, and/or duplex ultrasound examination. The primary end point was the prevalence of T2EL diagnosed within 1 year after EVAR. Secondary end points included the prevalence of T2EL throughout follow-up, early (≤30 days) and late (>30 days) T2EL, the rate of T2EL disappearance during the follow-up period, the prevalence of type I and III endoleak, and T2EL-related reinterventions. RESULTS: Follow-up was available for 394 patients, 245 in the PE and 149 in the PTFE group. The prevalence of T2EL diagnosed within 1 year after endovascular repair was 11.8% in the PE group and 21.5% in the PTFE group (P = .010). There was no significant difference in early (≤30 days) and late (>30 days) T2EL between groups (P = .270 and P = .311). There was no difference in the freedom from endoleak type II reinterventions between groups (P = .877). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of T2EL after elective EVAR is significantly higher with the use of PTFE-based endografts compared with PE-based endografts. This difference is mostly based on T2EL diagnosed after 30 days of follow-up.

Unenhanced computed tomography radiomics help detect endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility of unenhanced CT images for endoleak detection of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) after endovascular repair (EVAR). METHODS: Patients who visited our hospital after EVAR from July 2014 to September 2021 were retrospectively collected. Two radiologists evaluated the presence or absence of endoleaks using the combination of contrast-enhanced and unenhanced CT as the referenced standard. After segmenting the aneurysm sac of the unenhanced CT, the radiomic features were automatically extracted from the region of interest. Histogram features of patients with and without endoleak were statistically analyzed to explore the differences between the two groups. Twelve common machine learning (ML) models based on radiomic features were constructed to evaluate the performance of endoleak detection with unenhanced CT images. RESULTS: The study included 216 patients (69 ± 8 years; 191 men) with AAA, including 64 patients with endoleaks. A total of 1955 radiomic features of unenhanced CT were extracted. Compared with patients without endoleak, the aneurysm sac outside the stent of patients with endoleak had higher CT attenuation (41.7 vs. 33.6, p < 0.001) with smaller dispersion (51.5 vs. 58.8, p < 0.001). The average area under the curve (AUC) of the ML models constructed with unenhanced CT radiomics was 0.86 ± 0.05, the accuracy was 81% ± 4, the sensitivity was 88% ± 10, and the specificity was 78% ± 5. When fixing the sensitivity to > 90% (92% ± 2), the models retained specificity at 72% ± 10. CONCLUSIONS: Unenhanced CT features exhibit significant differences between patients with and without endoleak and can help detect endoleaks in AAA after EVAR with high sensitivity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Unenhanced CT radiomics can help provide an alternative method of endoleak detection in patients who have adverse reactions to contrast media. This study further exploits the value of unenhanced CT examinations in the clinical management and surveillance of postoperative abdominal aortic aneurysm. KEY POINTS: • Unenhanced CT features of the aneurysm sac outside the stent exhibit significant differences between patients with and without endoleak. The endoleak group showed higher unenhanced CT attenuation (41.7 vs 33.6, p < .001) with smaller dispersion (51.5 vs 58.8, p < .001) than the nonendoleak group. • Unenhanced CT radiomics can help detect endoleaks after intervention. The average area under the curve (AUC) of twelve common machine learning models constructed with unenhanced CT radiomics was 0.86 ± 0.05, the average accuracy was 81% ± 4. • When fixing the sensitivity to > 90% (92% ± 2), the machine learning models retained average specificity at 72% ± 10.

Is There a Role for Heli-FX Endoanchors in Treating Type 1B Common Iliac Artery Endoleaks?

OBJECTIVES: The management of type 1B endoleaks following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be challenging. The Heli-FX Endoanchor system effectively treats proximal type 1A endoleaks but has not been used for type 1B common iliac artery endoleaks. This study demonstrates that it is both safe and effective in being used in the common iliac artery (CIA) limb of an EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients identified through coding and medical records was performed to extract information on demographics, aneurysmal features, operative features, and postoperative outcomes. This was then collated and analysed thoroughly and compared to existing research. RESULTS: Four patients with six type 1B CIA endoleaks were treated with Heli-FX Endoanchors in the CIA limbs of EVAR grafts. There was 100% technical success rate with complete exclusion of the endoleaks at 6 months. With mean follow up of 714 days, there were no Endoanchor-specific complications. One patient required explantation of the aortic endograft due to contralateral limb fracture, where it was found that an Endoanchor had penetrated the common iliac vein, requiring primary closure. CONCLUSIONS: Heli-FX Endoanchors were effective within this cohort of patients, though key risks were identified. Adjacent anatomy to the CIA must be considered, which also have nearly half the arterial thickness compared to the aorta. Pre-operative planning is essential given the theoretical risk of placing Endoanchors.

A Single-Institution Case Series of Total Endovascular Relining for Type 3 Endoleaks in Traditional Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) Grafts with Raised Bifurcations.

BACKGROUND: The endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms can be performed with a wide variety of devices. Many of these grafts elevate the aortic bifurcation which can limit future repairs if the graft material fails thereby creating a type III endoleak to aorto-uniliac grafts. Many manufacturers have grafts susceptible to this, but we have seen this in the Medtronic AneuRx graft. Our goal is to provide technical details and outcomes regarding a novel technique to reline these grafts while maintaining inline flow to the iliac arteries. METHODS: This was a single-institution review of patients who had endoleaks requiring intervention after a previously placed graft with an elevated aortic bifurcation. Primary outcomes included technical success defined as placement of all planned devices, resolution of type III endoleak, aneurysm size at follow-up, and requirement of reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications, aneurysm-related mortality, and all-cause mortality. Technical details of the operation include back-table deployment of an Ovation device, modification of the deployment system tether and pre-emptive placement of an up and over 0.014″ wire. The wire is placed up and over and hung outside the contralateral gate. Once the main body is introduced above the old graft, the 0.014" is snared from the contralateral side and externalized. The main body is then able to be seated at the bifurcation as the limb is not fully deployed and then device deployment is completed per instructions for use. RESULTS: Our study consists of 4 individuals, 3 of which had an abdominal aortic aneurysm initially managed with an AneuRx endovascular aneurysm repair and 1 with a combination of Gore and Cook grafts. All 4 patients were male with an average age of 84.5 years at time of reline. All patients had at least 10 years between initial surgery and reline at our institution. Primary outcomes revealed no type 1 or 3 endoleaks at follow-up, technical success was 100% and 1 patient required reintervention for aneurysm growth and type 2 endoleak. In terms of our secondary outcomes, there was 1 postoperative complication which was cardiac dysfunction secondary to demand ischemia, aneurysm-related mortality was 0% and all-cause mortality was 25% at average follow-up of 2.44 years. CONCLUSIONS: As individuals continue to age, there are more patients who would benefit from less invasive reinterventions following endovascular aneurysm repair. Whether this is due to aortic degeneration, stent migration, or stent material damage is not always known. In this study, we present an endovascular approach to treating type III endoleak patients with a previous graft and elevated aortic bifurcation using Ovation stent grafts and found no evidence of type 1 or 3 endoleaks on follow-up imaging. This approach may allow patients with type III endoleak the option of a minimally invasive, percutaneous approach where they previously would not have had one.