Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Feb;69(2):432-439. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.04.054. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
Most type II endoleaks have a benign natural history, but 6% to 8% are associated with sac enlargement and respond poorly to treatment. Our aim was to evaluate whether these enlargements are associated with delayed or occult type I and III endoleaks.
Patients with interventions for endoleak after endovascular aortic repair from 2000 to 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, comorbidities, endoleak type, secondary procedures, aortic sac growth (≥5 mm), and mortality were collected. Successful treatment was defined as endoleak resolution with no further aortic sac growth. Secondary procedures, ruptures, endograft explant, and death were captured.
There were 130 patients diagnosed with a primary type II endoleak after endovascular aortic repair at a median of 1.3 months (interquartile range, 1.0-13.3 months). One hundred eighteen had their initial treatment for a primary type II. Twelve of the 130 were initially stable and observed, but were treated for a delayed type I or III endoleak. The 130 patients underwent 279 procedures for endoleaks (mean of 2.2 ± 1.3) over 6.9 ± 3.8 years of follow-up. Of the 118 patients treated for primary type II endoleaks, 26 (22.0%) later required interventions for delayed type I and III endoleaks. The mean time to intervention for a delayed type I or III endoleak was 5.4 ± 2.8 years. Overall, there were 16 type IA, 11 type IB, 2 type III, 7 combined type IA/IB, and 2 type IA/III delayed endoleaks. The odds of harboring a delayed type I or III endoleak was 22.0% before the first attempt at type II endoleak treatment, 35.1% before the second, 44.8% before the third, and 66.6% before the fourth attempts. Rapid aortic sac growth of ≥5 mm/y before initial endoleak treatment was associated with increased risk for delayed type I or III endoleak (47.8 vs 14.1%; P = .003). Patients with delayed type I or III endoleaks had a lower successful treatment rate (8.3% vs 52.3%; P = .001) than those with only type II endoleaks. Late rupture was increased with delayed type I or III endoleak (P = .002), whereas mortality (P = .96) and aortic-related mortality (P = .46) were similar. Graft explant (P = .06) trended toward an increase with a delayed type I or III endoleak, but was not statistically significant.
Failed attempts treating type II endoleaks and/or a rapid aortic sac growth of 5 mm/y or greater should raise the suspicion of a delayed or occult type I or III endoleak. Occult endoleaks are associated with decreased chance of endoleak resolution.
大多数 II 型内漏具有良性的自然病史,但有 6%~8%的内漏与瘤腔增大有关,对治疗反应不佳。我们的目的是评估这些增大是否与延迟或隐匿性 I 型和 III 型内漏有关。
回顾性分析 2000 年至 2016 年接受血管内主动脉修复后发生内漏的患者。收集患者的人口统计学、合并症、内漏类型、二次手术、主动脉瘤腔增大(≥5mm)和死亡率。成功治疗定义为内漏得到解决,且主动脉瘤腔不再增大。同时记录二次手术、破裂、移植物取出和死亡情况。
130 例患者在血管内主动脉修复后中位时间为 1.3 个月(四分位距,1.0~13.3 个月)时被诊断为原发性 II 型内漏。118 例患者最初接受了原发性 II 型内漏的治疗。130 例患者中有 12 例最初稳定且进行了观察,但随后因延迟性 I 型或 III 型内漏而接受了治疗。130 例患者在 6.9±3.8 年的随访中接受了 279 次内漏治疗(平均 2.2±1.3 次)。在 118 例接受原发性 II 型内漏治疗的患者中,26 例(22.0%)后来需要介入治疗延迟性 I 型和 III 型内漏。延迟性 I 型或 III 型内漏的平均介入时间为 5.4±2.8 年。总的来说,有 16 例 I 型 A、11 例 I 型 B、2 例 III 型、7 例 I 型/IB 混合型和 2 例 I 型/III 型混合型延迟性内漏。在首次尝试治疗 II 型内漏之前,发生延迟性 I 型或 III 型内漏的几率分别为 22.0%、35.1%、44.8%和 66.6%。在初始内漏治疗前,主动脉瘤腔快速增大(≥5mm/y)与延迟性 I 型或 III 型内漏的风险增加相关(47.8%比 14.1%;P=0.003)。发生延迟性 I 型或 III 型内漏的患者成功治疗率(8.3%比 52.3%;P=0.001)低于仅发生 II 型内漏的患者。延迟性 I 型或 III 型内漏增加了晚期破裂的风险(P=0.002),但死亡率(P=0.96)和主动脉相关死亡率(P=0.46)相似。移植物取出(P=0.06)与延迟性 I 型或 III 型内漏呈增加趋势,但无统计学意义。
治疗 II 型内漏失败和/或主动脉瘤腔快速增大(≥5mm/y)应引起对延迟性或隐匿性 I 型或 III 型内漏的怀疑。隐匿性内漏与内漏解决机会减少有关。