Type II endoleak with an enlarging aortic sac after endovascular aneurysm repair predisposes to the development of a type IA endoleak.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

10-1-2020

Publication Title

Journal of Vascular Surgery : Official Publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The most common endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair is type II. Although type II endoleaks (TIIEL) are generally considered benign, there are reports that they can lead to aortic rupture. In this study, we reviewed the effect of TIIEL on sac size change to determine if sac expansion owing to a TIIEL could result in the development of a type IA endoleak (TIAEL).

METHODS: After internal review board approval, all aortoiliac endovascular aneurysm repairs performed at a single institution between June 2006 and June 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, aneurysm diameter, graft type, need for reintervention, and complications were collected. Patients with TIIEL diagnosed on follow-up imaging were categorized as those who underwent intervention for their TIIEL and those who did not. Outcomes were tabulated with attention to sac size change, development of TIAEL, rupture, and survival.

RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-seven patients underwent aortoiliac stent graft placement at our institution during this time period. Patients with an operative indication other than nonruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and those without preoperative computed tomography angiography or follow-up data available for review were excluded. The total number of patients included was 389 with an average follow-up of 58.8 months (range, 0-194 months). Follow-up imaging diagnosed 124 patients with TIIEL (32%). Patients with TIIEL were significantly older (P < .0001) and more likely to be hypertensive (P < .05) but less likely to be smokers (P = .01). They had a significantly larger sac size increase than patients without TIIEL (9.50 vs -0.78 mm; P < .0001). Those with TIIEL were significantly more likely to develop a TIAEL than patients who did not have TIIEL (14% vs 5%; P = .004), but the rate of rupture was not significantly different (4% vs 2%; P = .33). In those with a TIIEL, the average sac size increase at which TIAEL developed was 13 mm. Patients in the TIIEL group who underwent intervention for their TIIEL survived significantly longer than patients who did not undergo intervention (140 months vs 100 months; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that there is an increased incidence of late TIAEL in patients with TIIEL compared with those without a TIIEL. Our study also demonstrates an increased overall survival in TIIEL patients who underwent intervention. Future studies are necessary to better define the association between TIIEL with enlarging sac and the development of TIAEL. However, it is reasonable to conclude that intervention for TIIEL should be undertaken at or before a cumulative sac size increase of 13 mm.

Volume

72

Issue

4

First Page

1354

Last Page

1359

DOI

10.1016/j.jvs.2020.01.038

ISSN

1097-6809

PubMed ID

32417014

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS