Department of Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Mich.
Department of Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Mich.
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Oct;72(4):1354-1359. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.01.038. Epub 2020 May 13.
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).
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.
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).
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.
血管内动脉瘤修复术后最常见的内漏是 II 型。虽然 II 型内漏(TIIEL)通常被认为是良性的,但有报道称它们可能导致主动脉破裂。在这项研究中,我们回顾了 TIIEL 对瘤囊大小变化的影响,以确定 TIIEL 引起的瘤囊扩张是否会导致 I 型内漏(TIAEL)的发生。
经内部审查委员会批准,回顾性分析了 2006 年 6 月至 2012 年 6 月期间在我院行腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术的所有患者。收集患者的人口统计学、合并症、瘤囊直径、移植物类型、需要再次干预和并发症等资料。对随访影像学诊断为 TIIEL 的患者进行分类,分为接受 TIIEL 干预的患者和未接受 TIIEL 干预的患者。对瘤囊大小变化、TIAEL 发展、破裂和生存情况进行了数据分析。
在此期间,我院共 627 例患者行腹主动脉瘤腔内支架植入术。排除了手术指征为非破裂性肾下腹主动脉瘤且无术前 CT 血管造影或随访数据可供复查的患者。纳入的患者总数为 389 例,平均随访 58.8 个月(0-194 个月)。随访影像学诊断出 124 例 TIIEL(32%)。TIIEL 患者年龄明显较大(P<0.0001),高血压(P<0.05)更常见,但吸烟者(P=0.01)较少。与无 TIIEL 的患者相比,TIIEL 患者的瘤囊增大明显更大(9.50 毫米比-0.78 毫米;P<0.0001)。与无 TIIEL 的患者相比,TIIEL 患者发生 TIAEL 的可能性显著更高(14%比 5%;P=0.004),但破裂率无显著差异(4%比 2%;P=0.33)。在 TIIEL 患者中,TIAEL 发展时的平均瘤囊增大为 13 毫米。TIIEL 组中接受 TIIEL 干预的患者的总生存时间明显长于未接受干预的患者(140 个月比 100 个月;P=0.004)。
我们的数据表明,与无 TIIEL 的患者相比,TIIEL 患者发生晚期 TIAEL 的发生率更高。我们的研究还表明,接受 TIIEL 干预的 TIIEL 患者的总体生存率更高。未来需要进一步研究来更好地确定 TIIEL 与瘤囊增大之间的关联以及 TIAEL 的发生。然而,我们有理由认为,TIIEL 的干预应在瘤囊大小累计增加 13 毫米时进行。