Dataset Information

Intraoperative Findings of an Atypical Type II Endoleak from an Artery within the Aneurysmal Wall after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

ABSTRACT: A 75-year-old man underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Two years later, computed tomography revealed aneurysm enlargement with endoleaks. Next, late open conversion was performed. Intraoperatively, we detected a spurting type II endoleak from an artery within the aneurysmal wall, which was unconnected to any branch vessels outside the aneurysm, and surgical ligation and sacotomy was performed uneventfully. To our knowledge, this is the first report to intraoperatively identify a type II endoleak from an artery within the aneurysm wall. Even for atypical type II endoleak, such as this case, open surgical repair should be effective.

SUBMITTER: Takahashi B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7758595 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intraoperative Findings of an Atypical Type II Endoleak from an Artery within the Aneurysmal Wall after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

Takahashi Baku B Kamiya Shinji S Ohta Kengo K Mori Yoshiharu Y Yamada Toshiyuki T Nakai Yosuke Y Suda Hisao H Mishima Akira A

Annals of vascular diseases 20201201 4

A 75-year-old man underwent emergent endovascular aortic repair for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Two years later, computed tomography revealed aneurysm enlargement with endoleaks. Next, late open conversion was performed. Intraoperatively, we detected a spurting type II endoleak from an artery within the aneurysmal wall, which was unconnected to any branch vessels outside the aneurysm, and surgical ligation and sacotomy was performed uneventfully. To our knowledge, this is the first rep ...[more]

PMID: 33391572

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo determine outcomes of aneurysmal common iliac arteries (aCIA) used for landing zones (LZs) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).MethodsThis single-center study retrospectively compared 57 EVAR patients (mean age 72±8 years; 56 men) with 70 aCIAs (diameter ≥20 mm) to 25 control EVAR subjects (mean age 73±7 years; 20 men) with 50 normal (≤15-mm) CIA LZs treated consecutively during the same time interval. The CIA LZ measurements were analyzed using random effects linear mixed models to determine diameter change over time. Life tables were used to estimate freedom from endoleak, reintervention, and all-cause mortality.ResultsThe mean maximum preoperative CIA diameter in the aCIA LZ group was 24.8±4.5 mm (range 20.0-47.3, median 23.9) vs 13.6±1.5 mm (range 9.2-15.0, median 13.9; p<0.001) in the controls. Nineteen aCIA LZs were treated outside the instructions for use of the device. Median follow-up in the aCIAs LZ cohort was 39.2 months [interquartile range (IQR) 15, 61] vs 49.3 months (IQR 36, 61) in the controls (p=0.06). The rate of aCIA LZ change (0.09 mm/mo, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.1) was significantly greater than controls (0.03 mm/mo, 95% CI -0.009 to 0.07; p<0.0001). No type Ib endoleaks developed in either group; however, aCIA LZ patients had 6 (11%) iliac limb-related reinterventions. There were significantly more endograft-related reinterventions in the aCIA LZ patients (n=10, 14%) compared with controls (n=2, 4%; p=0.06). There was no difference in mortality or freedom from any post-hospital discharge endoleak.ConclusionAneurysmal CIA LZs used during EVAR experience greater dilatation compared with normal LZs, but no significant difference in outcome was noted in midterm follow-up. However, an increased incidence of graft limb complications or endograft-related reintervention may be encountered. Use of aCIA LZs appears to be safe; however, greater patient numbers and longer follow-up are needed to understand the clinical implications of morphologic changes in these vessels when used during EVAR.

Project description:ObjectivesOur goal was to identify the inferior mesenteric artery diameter and number of patent lumbar arteries causing a significant type 2 endoleak to develop after infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.Material and methodsIncluded were patients who underwent infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair between April 2002 and January 2017. Patients with an aneurysm involving the iliac arteries were excluded. Significant type 2 endoleak was defined as a type 2 endoleak observed after infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair and accompanied by abdominal aneurysm growth of at least 5 mm during that time.ResultsA total of 277 patients were included. Mean follow-up was 38.9 (standard deviation 121.6) months. Immediately after infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair, type 2 endoleaks occurred in 55 patients (20%), resolving spontaneously in 2 patients 6 months after infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair. Thirty (10.8%) patients revealed a significant type 2 endoleak with aneurysm sack enlargement > 5 mm during follow-up, for which inferior mesenteric artery or lumbar artery coiling was performed. Mean time for coiling after primary infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair was 25.4 (standard deviation 19.10) months. Twenty-three patients (8.3%) showed a non-significant type 2 endoleak during follow-up (no aneurysm sack enlargement). We found that the inferior mesenteric artery diameter and number of patent lumbar arteries were factors associated with a significant type 2 endoleak (odds ratio 1.755, P = 0.001; odds ratio 1.717, P < 0.001, respectively). Prior to endovascular aneurysm repair, the inferior mesenteric artery was patent in 212 (76.5%) patients; its median diameter measured 3 (0.5-3.8) mm. The median number of patent lumbar arteries was 3 (2-4). According to our receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, an inferior mesenteric artery diameter ≥3 mm (sensitivity 93.3%, specificity 65%) and ≥3 patent lumbar arteries (sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 43.6%) proved to be optimal cut-off values related to developing a significant type 2 endoleak. We therefore propose a composite score for the development of a significant type 2 endoleak [(inferior mesenteric artery diameter + patent lumbar arteries)/2].ConclusionsPatients in whom the diameter of the inferior mesenteric artery is ≥ 3 mm and with ≥ 3 patent lumbar arteries carry a higher risk of developing significant type 2 endoleak after infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.

Project description:BackgroundEndovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), using the Nellix endovascular aneurysm sealing system, has been associated with high reintervention and migration rates. However, prior reports have suggested that EVAS might be related to a lower all-cause mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In the present study, we examined the 5-year all-cause mortality trends after EVAS and EVAR.MethodsWe compared the 333 EVAS patients in the EVAS-1 Nellix U.S. investigational device exemption trial with 16,497 infrarenal EVAR controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative, treated between 2014 and 2016, after applying the exclusion criteria from the investigational device exemption trial (ie, hemodialysis, creatinine >2.0 mg/dL, rupture). As a secondary analysis, we stratified the patients by aneurysm diameter (<5.5 cm and ≥5.5 cm). We calculated propensity scores after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic characteristics and applied inverse probability weighting to compare the risk-adjusted long-term mortality using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.ResultsAfter weighting, the EVAS group had experienced similar 5-year mortality compared with the controls from the Vascular Quality Initiative (EVAS vs EVAR, 18% vs 14%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.7; P = .70). The subgroup analysis demonstrated that for patients with an aneurysm diameter of <5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with higher 5-year mortality compared with EVAR (19% vs 11%; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7; P = .013). In patients with an aneurysm diameter of ≥5.5 cm, EVAS was associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years (2-year mortality: HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.62; P = .002). However, compared with EVAR, EVAS was associated with higher mortality between 2 and 5 years (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = .005), with no mortality difference at 5 years (18% vs 17%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .46).ConclusionsWithin the overall population, EVAS was associated with similar 5-year mortality compared with EVAR. EVAS was associated with higher mortality for those with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm). For those with larger aneurysms (≥5.5 cm), EVAS was initially associated with lower mortality within the first 2 years, although this advantage was lost thereafter, with higher mortality after 2 years. Future studies are required to evaluate the specific causes of death and to elucidate the potential beneficial mechanism behind sac obliteration that leads to this potential initial survival benefit. This could help guide the development of future grafts with better proximal fixation and sealing that also incorporate sac obliteration.

Project description:In endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), proximal type 1A endoleaks can occur as a result of hostile neck anatomy or over- or undersizing of the endograft. As the current standard is based on the diameter or average of the short and long axes in a central lumen reconstruction image, it can falter in irregularly shaped aortic necks. An alternative method is circumference-based, therefore minimizing the measurement error. In this study we aimed to assess the degree of discrepancy between both methods and the association of this discrepancy with the occurrence of endoleak type 1A.All patients with early (<30 days post-operative) endoleak type 1A after elective EVAR at our center between 2004 and 2016 were identified for a retrospective case-control study. Control patients were matched based on hostile neck anatomy, such as calcification, thrombus, reverse taper, and ?-angulation. The aortic neck diameter was measured using the traditional, diameter-based method as well as an alternative method, based on the circumference of the aortic neck.In 482 EVAR patients, 18 early endoleak type 1A cases were found (3.9%). After exclusion, 12 cases remained and 48 matching controls were found. No significant differences were found between the two measuring methods at any level below the renal arteries. The inter-observer variability was significant for the D(mean) (0.4 ± 1.69 mm, P = .02) and was larger than the D(circ) method (-0.1 ± 1.03 mm, P = .35). In only four out of 12 cases the endograft size was 10-20% larger than the D(mean) and D(circ) measurements. The differences between the diameter of the D(mean) and D(circ) and the chosen endograft were smaller for the case group (-8 ± 25.6% and -7 ± 24%) than for the control group. (-12.4 ± 12.4% and -11 ± 10.7%).The difference between the D(mean) and D(circ) methods for aortic neck measurement was not large enough to play a significant role in the incidence of endoleak type 1A. Inadequate oversizing and considerable ?-angulation of the aortic neck may have been the cause of endoleak type 1A in this population. Robust and well-investigated sizing methods are paramount for accurate endograft sizing and prevention of endoleak type 1A. Therefore the lack of studies in this field and a sizeable inter-observer variability do not justify the widespread reliance on the traditional diameter-based methods for endograft sizing.

Dataset Information

Intraoperative Findings of an Atypical Type II Endoleak from an Artery within the Aneurysmal Wall after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

Publications

Intraoperative Findings of an Atypical Type II Endoleak from an Artery within the Aneurysmal Wall after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets