University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
J Endovasc Ther. 2012 Apr;19(2):182-92. doi: 10.1583/11-3653.1.
To examine the outcomes following interventions for type II endoleaks in patients with aneurysm sac expansion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).
A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent treatment for type II endoleak from July 2001 to September 2010 in a single center. In this time period, 29 (4.7%) patients (22 men; mean age 78.6 years, range 54-87) were identified as having a type II endoleak and enlargement of the aneurysm sac, meeting the criterion for treatment. All patients had at least one attempted percutaneous intervention. Patients were followed both clinically and radiographically, with computed tomographic angiography every 3 to 12 months, over a follow-up period that ranged from 1 to 10 years (mean 3.5).
Forty-eight interventions were performed on the 29 patients. Of these, 15 (56%) patients underwent multiple (2-4) procedures. Of the 11 endoleaks with an isolated inferior mesenteric artery identified as the source, initial success for transarterial embolization at 2 years was 72%, with 2 of the failures having successful secondary interventions. For the 18 endoleaks with a lumbar source, the success of the initial intervention was 17% at 2 years; repeated embolization attempts produced a 40% secondary success rate. Seven (24%) patients had continued endoleak despite multiple treatment attempts; 3 ultimately required elective aortic graft explantation. There were no ruptures or deaths during the study period. In a comparison of type II endoleak patients who had stable aneurysm sacs and those who had persistent sac expansion, the only significant differences in preoperative anatomical characteristics were a lower prevalence of mural thrombus (p = 0.036) and longer right iliac arteries (p = 0.012) in the group with sac expansion. Independent predictors of type II endoleak were mural thrombus (p<0.001), patent lumbar arteries (p = 0.004), aneurysm length (p = 0.011), and iliac artery length (p = 0.004).
This study demonstrates that most patients require multiple reinterventions to treat type II endoleaks; specifically, lumbar artery embolization carries a low midterm success rate.
研究血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)后瘤囊扩张的 II 型内漏患者的干预治疗结果。
对 2001 年 7 月至 2010 年 9 月在单中心接受 II 型内漏治疗的所有患者进行回顾性分析。在此期间,发现 29 例(4.7%)患者(22 例男性;平均年龄 78.6 岁,范围 54-87 岁)有 II 型内漏和瘤囊扩张,符合治疗标准。所有患者均至少进行了一次经皮介入治疗。患者接受临床和影像学随访,每 3-12 个月行 CT 血管造影检查,随访时间 1-10 年(平均 3.5 年)。
29 例患者共进行了 48 次介入治疗。其中,15 例(56%)患者接受了多次(2-4 次)治疗。11 例起源于孤立性肠系膜下动脉的内漏中,2 年时经动脉栓塞的初始成功率为 72%,2 例失败患者的二次干预成功。18 例起源于腰椎的内漏中,初始干预的 2 年成功率为 17%;重复栓塞尝试的二次成功率为 40%。7 例(24%)患者尽管进行了多次治疗尝试,但仍持续存在内漏;其中 3 例最终需要择期主动脉移植物取出。研究期间无破裂或死亡。在比较瘤囊稳定和持续扩张的 II 型内漏患者时,术前解剖学特征的唯一显著差异是扩张组血栓形成的发生率较低(p = 0.036)和右侧髂动脉较长(p = 0.012)。II 型内漏的独立预测因素是血栓形成(p<0.001)、开放的腰椎动脉(p = 0.004)、动脉瘤长度(p = 0.011)和髂动脉长度(p = 0.004)。
本研究表明,大多数患者需要多次再干预来治疗 II 型内漏;具体而言,腰椎动脉栓塞的中期成功率较低。