Treatment of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Comparison of transarterial and translumbar techniques

Richard A. Baum, Jeffrey P. Carpenter, Michael A. Golden, Omaida C Velazquez, Timothy W I Clark, S. William Stavropoulous, Constantine Cope, Ronald M. Fairman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

225 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The exact significance of collateral endoleaks is unknown and a topic of great debate. Because of this uncertainty, some physicians choose to watch and wait while others aggressively treat these leaks. The purpose of this investigation was the evaluation of the efficacy of the two techniques used in the treatment of collateral endoleaks that occur after endovascular aneurysm repair. Methods: Patients with 33 angiographically proven type 2 endoleaks underwent treatment with either transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization (n = 20) or direct translumbar embolization (n = 13) during an 18-month period. Embolization success was defined as resolution of endoleak on all subsequent computed tomography angiogram results. The likelihood of embolization failure between the two treatments was expressed as a risk ratio and was compared with Fisher exact test. Results: Sixteen of 20 transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolizations (80%) failed with recanalization of the original endoleak cavity over time. A single failure (8%) in die direct translumbar embolization group occurred in a patient in whom a new attachment site leak developed. The remaining 12 translumbar endoleak embolizations (92%) were successful and durable, with a median follow-up period of 254 days. The patients who underwent transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization were significantly more likely to have persistent endoleak than were the patients who underwent treatment with direct translumbar embolization (risk ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.9 to 11.2; P = .0001). Conclusion: The transarterial embolization of inferior mesenteric arteries for the repair of type 2 endoleaks is ineffective and should not be performed. Direct translumbar embolization of the endoleak is effective in the elimination of type 2 leaks and should be the therapy of choice when aggressive endoleak management is indicated.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)23-29
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume35
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Endoleak
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Inferior Mesenteric Artery
Therapeutics
Odds Ratio
Uncertainty
Aneurysm
Angiography
Tomography
Confidence Intervals
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Treatment of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms : Comparison of transarterial and translumbar techniques. / Baum, Richard A.; Carpenter, Jeffrey P.; Golden, Michael A.; Velazquez, Omaida C; Clark, Timothy W I; Stavropoulous, S. William; Cope, Constantine; Fairman, Ronald M.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 35, No. 1, 01.01.2002, p. 23-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Baum, Richard A. ; Carpenter, Jeffrey P. ; Golden, Michael A. ; Velazquez, Omaida C ; Clark, Timothy W I ; Stavropoulous, S. William ; Cope, Constantine ; Fairman, Ronald M. / Treatment of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms : Comparison of transarterial and translumbar techniques. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2002 ; Vol. 35, No. 1. pp. 23-29.
@article{93d042559dcf4f4fb19a93aa2052e30f,
title = "Treatment of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: Comparison of transarterial and translumbar techniques",
abstract = "Objective: The exact significance of collateral endoleaks is unknown and a topic of great debate. Because of this uncertainty, some physicians choose to watch and wait while others aggressively treat these leaks. The purpose of this investigation was the evaluation of the efficacy of the two techniques used in the treatment of collateral endoleaks that occur after endovascular aneurysm repair. Methods: Patients with 33 angiographically proven type 2 endoleaks underwent treatment with either transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization (n = 20) or direct translumbar embolization (n = 13) during an 18-month period. Embolization success was defined as resolution of endoleak on all subsequent computed tomography angiogram results. The likelihood of embolization failure between the two treatments was expressed as a risk ratio and was compared with Fisher exact test. Results: Sixteen of 20 transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolizations (80{\%}) failed with recanalization of the original endoleak cavity over time. A single failure (8{\%}) in die direct translumbar embolization group occurred in a patient in whom a new attachment site leak developed. The remaining 12 translumbar endoleak embolizations (92{\%}) were successful and durable, with a median follow-up period of 254 days. The patients who underwent transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization were significantly more likely to have persistent endoleak than were the patients who underwent treatment with direct translumbar embolization (risk ratio, 4.6; 95{\%} confidence interval, 1.9 to 11.2; P = .0001). Conclusion: The transarterial embolization of inferior mesenteric arteries for the repair of type 2 endoleaks is ineffective and should not be performed. Direct translumbar embolization of the endoleak is effective in the elimination of type 2 leaks and should be the therapy of choice when aggressive endoleak management is indicated.",
author = "Baum, {Richard A.} and Carpenter, {Jeffrey P.} and Golden, {Michael A.} and Velazquez, {Omaida C} and Clark, {Timothy W I} and Stavropoulous, {S. William} and Constantine Cope and Fairman, {Ronald M.}",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1067/mva.2002.121068",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "23--29",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

T2 - Comparison of transarterial and translumbar techniques

AU - Baum, Richard A.

AU - Carpenter, Jeffrey P.

AU - Golden, Michael A.

AU - Velazquez, Omaida C

AU - Clark, Timothy W I

AU - Stavropoulous, S. William

AU - Cope, Constantine

AU - Fairman, Ronald M.

PY - 2002/1/1

Y1 - 2002/1/1

N2 - Objective: The exact significance of collateral endoleaks is unknown and a topic of great debate. Because of this uncertainty, some physicians choose to watch and wait while others aggressively treat these leaks. The purpose of this investigation was the evaluation of the efficacy of the two techniques used in the treatment of collateral endoleaks that occur after endovascular aneurysm repair. Methods: Patients with 33 angiographically proven type 2 endoleaks underwent treatment with either transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization (n = 20) or direct translumbar embolization (n = 13) during an 18-month period. Embolization success was defined as resolution of endoleak on all subsequent computed tomography angiogram results. The likelihood of embolization failure between the two treatments was expressed as a risk ratio and was compared with Fisher exact test. Results: Sixteen of 20 transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolizations (80%) failed with recanalization of the original endoleak cavity over time. A single failure (8%) in die direct translumbar embolization group occurred in a patient in whom a new attachment site leak developed. The remaining 12 translumbar endoleak embolizations (92%) were successful and durable, with a median follow-up period of 254 days. The patients who underwent transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization were significantly more likely to have persistent endoleak than were the patients who underwent treatment with direct translumbar embolization (risk ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.9 to 11.2; P = .0001). Conclusion: The transarterial embolization of inferior mesenteric arteries for the repair of type 2 endoleaks is ineffective and should not be performed. Direct translumbar embolization of the endoleak is effective in the elimination of type 2 leaks and should be the therapy of choice when aggressive endoleak management is indicated.

AB - Objective: The exact significance of collateral endoleaks is unknown and a topic of great debate. Because of this uncertainty, some physicians choose to watch and wait while others aggressively treat these leaks. The purpose of this investigation was the evaluation of the efficacy of the two techniques used in the treatment of collateral endoleaks that occur after endovascular aneurysm repair. Methods: Patients with 33 angiographically proven type 2 endoleaks underwent treatment with either transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization (n = 20) or direct translumbar embolization (n = 13) during an 18-month period. Embolization success was defined as resolution of endoleak on all subsequent computed tomography angiogram results. The likelihood of embolization failure between the two treatments was expressed as a risk ratio and was compared with Fisher exact test. Results: Sixteen of 20 transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolizations (80%) failed with recanalization of the original endoleak cavity over time. A single failure (8%) in die direct translumbar embolization group occurred in a patient in whom a new attachment site leak developed. The remaining 12 translumbar endoleak embolizations (92%) were successful and durable, with a median follow-up period of 254 days. The patients who underwent transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization were significantly more likely to have persistent endoleak than were the patients who underwent treatment with direct translumbar embolization (risk ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.9 to 11.2; P = .0001). Conclusion: The transarterial embolization of inferior mesenteric arteries for the repair of type 2 endoleaks is ineffective and should not be performed. Direct translumbar embolization of the endoleak is effective in the elimination of type 2 leaks and should be the therapy of choice when aggressive endoleak management is indicated.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036358205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036358205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mva.2002.121068

DO - 10.1067/mva.2002.121068

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 23

EP - 29

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

IS - 1

ER -