Outcomes of percutaneous endovascular intervention for type II endoleak with aneurysm expansion

Abstract

Objective: Type II endoleak (T2EL) with aneurysm expansion is believed to place patients at risk for aneurysm-related mortality (ARM). Treatment with glue and/or coil embolization of the aneurysm sac, inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), and lumbar branches via translumbar or transarterial approaches has been utilized to ablate such endoleaks, and thus decrease ARM. We evaluated the midterm results of percutaneous endovascular treatment of T2EL with aneurysm expansion.

Methods: Single-institution, 5-year (January 2003 to August 2008) retrospective study of all endovascular interventions for T2EL with sac expansion. Blinded, independent review of all available pre- and post-T2EL intervention computed tomography (CT) scans was performed. Aneurysm sac maximal transverse diameters and aneurysm sac growth rates prior to and following T2EL intervention were analyzed.

Results: Forty-two patients (34 male, eight female; mean age, 75) underwent T2EL intervention at 26 ± 20 months after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and were subsequently followed for 23 ± 20 months. Seven out of 42 patients (17%) underwent repeat T2EL intervention. Interventions included 44 translumbar sac embolizations, and transcatheter embolizations of nine IMAs and seven lumbar/hypogastric arteries. Aneurysm diameter was 6.1 ± 1.6 cm at EVAR, 6.6 ± 1.5 cm at initial T2EL treatment, and 6.9 ± 1.7 cm at last follow-up. There were no significant differences in the rates of aneurysm sac growth pre- and post-T2EL treatment. At last follow-up imaging, recurrent or persistent T2EL was noted in 72% of patients. Of 42 patients, nine (21%) received operative endoluminal correction of occult type I or type III endoleaks that were diagnosed during the T2EL angiographic intervention. There were no aneurysm ruptures or ARMs during follow-up; overall mortality for the 5-year study period was 24%.

Conclusions: In this series, percutaneous endovascular intervention for type II endoleak with aneurysm sac growth does not appear to alter the rate of aneurysm sac growth, and the majority of patients display persistent/recurrent endoleak. However, diagnostic angiographic evaluation may reveal unexpected type I and III endoleaks and is therefore recommended for all patients with T2EL and sac growth. While coil and glue embolization of aneurysm sac and selected branch vessels does not appear to yield benefit in our series, the diagnosis and subsequent definitive treatment of previously occult type I and III endoleaks may explain the absence of delayed rupture and ARM in our series.