Direct percutaneous sac injection for postoperative endoleak treatment after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.
BACKGROUND
This study presents the short-term and midterm results of direct percutaneous sac injection (DPSI) for postoperative endoleak treatment after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).


METHODS
Between March 1994 and November 2011, EVAR was performed in 986 patients. The median follow-up was 63 ± 45 months (range, 0-211 months). A retrospective analysis was performed. DPSI was used in 21 patients for 19 type II endoleaks and two endoleaks of undefined origin (EOUO), of which 12 (57%) were after failure of a previous endovascular treatment attempt.


RESULTS
DPSI using thrombin (n = 16), coils (n = 7), gelfoam (n = 6), or glue (n = 3), or a combination, was technically feasible in all patients. Saccography during DPSI revealed a previously undetected type I endoleak in three patients. Immediate DPSI success was achieved in 16 of 18 procedures (88.9%), with two complications. Glue incidentally intravasated in the inferior vena cava, causing a clinically nonsignificant subsegmental pulmonary artery embolism in one patient, and the temporary development of a type III endoleak, possibly from graft puncture, in another. During a median follow-up of 39 months (interquartile range, 13-88 months) after DPSI, recurrent endoleaks were observed in nine patients (50.0%), one type I endoleak due to graft migration, five type II endoleaks, and three EOUO. The occurrence of a re-endoleak during follow-up was significantly associated with dual-antiplatelet medication (0% in patients without re-endoleak vs 44.4% in patients with re-endoleak; P = .023) and with a nonsignificant trend for the use of aspirin alone (33.3% in patients without re-endoleak vs 80% in patients with re-endoleak; P = .094). Re-endoleak occurred in 33.3% of the patients without antiplatelet medication and in 100% of patients with dual-antiplatelet medication (P = .026). Thrombin was used as the sole embolic agent during the initial DPSI in all patients with dual-antiplatelet therapy. No other factor was significantly associated with re-endoleaks. Reintervention was deemed necessary in six patients within a median of 10 months (interquartile range, 4-16 months) after DPSI, including six additional DPSI treatments in four patients with type II re-endoleaks, cuff placements in one type I endoleak, and endograft relining in one EOUO.


CONCLUSIONS
This initial experience suggests that DPSI is feasible as a technique for endoleak treatment after EVAR. However, complications and endoleak recurrence remain a concern. The role of antiplatelet therapy and different embolic agents on long-term embolization success needs to be studied in more detail.
Baptist Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Hospital of Miami, Miami, Florida 33176, USA. uthoffh@uhbs.ch
Heiko
H
Uthoff
Barry T
BT
Katzen
Ripal
R
Gandhi
Constantino S
CS
Peña
James F
JF
Benenati
Philipp
P
Geisbüsch
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D017544:Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal / Q000601:surgery*; D001807:Blood Vessel Prosthesis; D019917:Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; D004621:Embolization, Therapeutic; D057867:Endoleak / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology / Q000628:therapy*; D057510:Endovascular Procedures; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D006490:Hemostatics / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D006801:Humans; D007267:Injections; D008297:Male; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D006490:Hemostatics