Maldonado T S, Rosen R J, Rockman C B, Adelman M A, Bajakian D, Jacobowitz G R, Riles T S, Lamparello P J
Division of Vascular Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, NYU Medical Center, 650 First Avenue, Suite 6F, New York, NY 10016, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2003 Oct;38(4):664-70. doi: 10.1016/s0741-5214(03)00729-8.
Transcatheter embolization with coils and other agents has been described as a treatment method for type II endoleak after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Type I endoleak has not been treated commonly with such therapies, although most investigators believe they warrant definitive intervention. The liquid adhesive n-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate (n-BCA) is often used to treat congenital arteriovenous malformations. The objective of this study is to report our initial experience in treating type I endoleak with n-BCA and with a variety of other interventions.
A retrospective review was performed of 270 patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between January 1994 and December 2002. Of these, 24 patients had type I endoleak (8.9%), diagnosed either intraoperatively (n = 13, 52%) or during follow-up (n = 12, 48%). Among these 24 patients, 17 had proximal leaks and the remaining 8 patients had distal leaks. These cases form the focus of this study.
Twenty-two leaks required endovascular intervention, with the following success rate: n-BCA, 12 of 13 cases (92.3%); extender cuffs, 4 of 5 cases (80%); coils with or without thrombin, 3 of 4 cases (75%). In one patient with persistent endoleak despite attempted endovascular intervention the device ultimately was surgically explanted, and the patient did well. Of six patients with endoleak initially managed expectantly, two eventually underwent attempts at definitive intervention, both with n-BCA. Three sealed spontaneously before definitive intervention could be performed; and in one 97-year-old patient who refused intervention, the aneurysm subsequently ruptured and the patient died. In total, 13 patients with type I endoleak underwent n-BCA transcatheter embolotherapy. No serious complications were directly related to this therapy. Colon ischemia developed in one patient, and was believed to be a result of thromboembolism during wire and catheter manipulation rather than n-BCA treatment. Twelve of these 13 leaks remain sealed at mean follow-up of 5.9 months (range, 0-19 months).
Our initial use of n-BCA occlusion suggests that it may be an effective and safe method of treatment of type I endoleak after EVAR. In particular, n-BCA embolotherapy may be especially useful in treating type I endoleak not amenable to placement of extender cuffs. Larger case series and longer follow-up are needed before this treatment is more broadly recommended. Type I endoleak after EVAR can be treated successfully with a variety of endovascular methods, and surgical explantation is rarely required.
