Jesse M Manunga1, Andrew Cragg2, Ross Garberich3, Jonathan A Urbach4, Needa Skeik2, Jason Alexander2, Jessica Titus2, Elliot Stephenson2, Peter Alden2, Timothy M Sullivan2. 1. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, MN. Electronic address: Jesse.manunga@allina.com. 2. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, MN. 3. Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, Minneapolis, MN. 4. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type II endoleak is the most commonly encountered endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Some have advocated preoperative inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) embolization as a valid method for reducing the incidence of this endoleak, but controversies exist. We sought to demonstrate the impact of IMA embolization using a meta-analysis of currently available studies combined with our own experience. METHODS: We conducted an institutional review board-approved, retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing IMA embolization before EVAR between the years 2010 and 2015 and used as a control a similar group of patients with patent IMA. We divided patients from our own experience and 5 other studies into 2 groups: those who did not undergo IMA embolization (control) before EVAR and those who did. Rates of type II endoleaks, aneurysm sac regression, and secondary interventions were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 620 patients from 6 studies were analyzed, including 258 patients who underwent an attempted IMA embolization before EVAR with a cumulative success rate of 99.2% (range, 93.8% to 100%). There was 1 fatality associated with IMA embolization. A meta-analysis showed that preoperative IMA embolization protected against type II endoleaks compared to the control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.31 [0.17-0.57]; P < 0.001, I2 = 43%). Furthermore, the rate of secondary intervention was significantly lower in the treatment group (OR, 0.12 [0.004-0.36]; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). After IMA embolization, type II endoleak resulted from patent lumbar arteries in all 62 patients with persistent endoleak. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative embolization of the IMA protects against the development of type II endoleaks and secondary interventions and may potentially lead to a rapid aneurysm sac regression. The procedure can be performed with a high technical success rate and minimal complications and should be considered in patients with IMA >3 mm before EVAR. A randomized trial, however, is required to clearly delineate the clinical significance of this technique.
BACKGROUND: Type II endoleak is the most commonly encountered endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Some have advocated preoperative inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) embolization as a valid method for reducing the incidence of this endoleak, but controversies exist. We sought to demonstrate the impact of IMA embolization using a meta-analysis of currently available studies combined with our own experience. METHODS: We conducted an institutional review board-approved, retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing IMA embolization before EVAR between the years 2010 and 2015 and used as a control a similar group of patients with patent IMA. We divided patients from our own experience and 5 other studies into 2 groups: those who did not undergo IMA embolization (control) before EVAR and those who did. Rates of type II endoleaks, aneurysm sac regression, and secondary interventions were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 620 patients from 6 studies were analyzed, including 258 patients who underwent an attempted IMA embolization before EVAR with a cumulative success rate of 99.2% (range, 93.8% to 100%). There was 1 fatality associated with IMA embolization. A meta-analysis showed that preoperative IMA embolization protected against type II endoleaks compared to the control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.31 [0.17-0.57]; P < 0.001, I2 = 43%). Furthermore, the rate of secondary intervention was significantly lower in the treatment group (OR, 0.12 [0.004-0.36]; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). After IMA embolization, type II endoleak resulted from patent lumbar arteries in all 62 patients with persistent endoleak. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative embolization of the IMA protects against the development of type II endoleaks and secondary interventions and may potentially lead to a rapid aneurysm sac regression. The procedure can be performed with a high technical success rate and minimal complications and should be considered in patients with IMA >3 mm before EVAR. A randomized trial, however, is required to clearly delineate the clinical significance of this technique.