Our objective was to determine the relative merits of intervention or observation of type II endoleaks (T2Ls). A retrospective analysis was performed on 386 infra-renal endovascular aneurysm repair (IR-EVAR) patients from 2006 to 2015. Annual surveillance imaging of patients undergoing EVAR at our centre were analysed, and all endoleaks were subjected to a multidisciplinary team meeting for consideration and treatment. In the 10-year time frame, 386 patients (79.5±8.7 years) underwent an IR-EVAR. Eighty-one patients (21.0%) developed a T2L and intervention was undertaken in 28 (34.6%): 17 (60.7%) were treated via a transarterial approach (TA) and 11 (39.3%) using the translumbar approach (TL). Fifty-three patients (65.4%) with T2Ls were managed conservatively. Patients who received T2L treatment had a greater proportion of recurrent T2Ls than patients who were conservatively managed ( p=0.032). T2Ls associated with aneurysmal growth were more resistant to treatment than those where there was no change or a decrease in aneurysm size during follow-up (0.033). There was no significant difference in the TA and TL approach with respect to endoleak repair success ( p=0.525). Treatment of a T2L did not confer a survival advantage compared to conservative management ( p=0.449) nor did the choice of either the TA or TL approach ( p=0.148). Our study suggests the development of a T2L associated with aneurysm growth may represent an aggressive phenotype that is resistant to treatment. However, this did not lead to an increased risk of mortality over follow-up. Neither a transarterial nor a translumbar approach to treating a T2L conferred superiority.
Keywords: abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA); embolization; endovascular aneurysm repair; interventional; type II endoleak; vascular.