Comparison of Type II Endoleak Embolizations: Embolization of Endoleak Nidus Only versus Embolization of Endoleak Nidus and Branch Vessels

Hyeon Yu, Hemant Desai, Ari J. Isaacson, Robert G. Dixon, Mark A. Farber, Charles T. Burke

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 3 Citations

Abstract

Purpose To compare outcomes of type II endoleak embolization involving embolization of the endoleak nidus only vs embolization of the endoleak nidus and branch vessels in patients treated with endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Materials and Methods Twenty-nine consecutive patients (mean age, 77.9 y; range, 63–88 y) with type II endoleak who underwent embolization from 2004 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: embolization of endoleak nidus only (group A) and embolization of endoleak nidus and branch vessels (group B). Mean follow-up intervals were 20.5 months ± 14.7 in group A and 24.3 months ± 18.5 in group B. Outcomes were compared between groups by Mann–Whitney U and Pearson χ2 tests. Results Mean interval from endovascular aneurysm repair to embolization was 47.6 months ± 42.9, and mean presentation time of endoleak before embolization was 23.1 months ± 25.8. Coils (n = 28) and liquid embolic agents (n = 23) were used for embolization. There were no significant differences in rates of residual endoleak (50% vs 53.8%; P = .96) or sac decrease/stabilization (62.5% vs 61.5%; P = .64). Procedure time and radiation exposure in group B (132.3 min ± 78.1; 232.4 Gy·cm2 ± 130.7) were greater than in group A (63.4 min ± 11.9; 61.5 Gy·cm2 ± 35.5; P < .01). There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusions Embolization of the endoleak nidus and branch vessels is not superior to embolization of only the nidus in terms of occlusion of type II endoleak and change in sac size despite requiring longer procedure times and resulting in greater patient radiation exposure.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages176-184
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume28
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Fingerprint

Endoleak
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Aneurysm

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{ff01b547a42a48508c53dec76613d1bf,
title = "Comparison of Type II Endoleak Embolizations: Embolization of Endoleak Nidus Only versus Embolization of Endoleak Nidus and Branch Vessels",
abstract = "Purpose To compare outcomes of type II endoleak embolization involving embolization of the endoleak nidus only vs embolization of the endoleak nidus and branch vessels in patients treated with endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Materials and Methods Twenty-nine consecutive patients (mean age, 77.9 y; range, 63–88 y) with type II endoleak who underwent embolization from 2004 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: embolization of endoleak nidus only (group A) and embolization of endoleak nidus and branch vessels (group B). Mean follow-up intervals were 20.5 months ± 14.7 in group A and 24.3 months ± 18.5 in group B. Outcomes were compared between groups by Mann–Whitney U and Pearson χ2 tests. Results Mean interval from endovascular aneurysm repair to embolization was 47.6 months ± 42.9, and mean presentation time of endoleak before embolization was 23.1 months ± 25.8. Coils (n = 28) and liquid embolic agents (n = 23) were used for embolization. There were no significant differences in rates of residual endoleak (50{\%} vs 53.8{\%}; P = .96) or sac decrease/stabilization (62.5{\%} vs 61.5{\%}; P = .64). Procedure time and radiation exposure in group B (132.3 min ± 78.1; 232.4 Gy·cm2 ± 130.7) were greater than in group A (63.4 min ± 11.9; 61.5 Gy·cm2 ± 35.5; P < .01). There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusions Embolization of the endoleak nidus and branch vessels is not superior to embolization of only the nidus in terms of occlusion of type II endoleak and change in sac size despite requiring longer procedure times and resulting in greater patient radiation exposure.",
author = "Hyeon Yu and Hemant Desai and Isaacson, {Ari J.} and Dixon, {Robert G.} and Farber, {Mark A.} and Burke, {Charles T.}",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvir.2016.10.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "176--184",
journal = "Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "1051-0443",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Type II Endoleak Embolizations

T2 - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

AU - Yu,Hyeon

AU - Desai,Hemant

AU - Isaacson,Ari J.

AU - Dixon,Robert G.

AU - Farber,Mark A.

AU - Burke,Charles T.

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - Purpose To compare outcomes of type II endoleak embolization involving embolization of the endoleak nidus only vs embolization of the endoleak nidus and branch vessels in patients treated with endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Materials and Methods Twenty-nine consecutive patients (mean age, 77.9 y; range, 63–88 y) with type II endoleak who underwent embolization from 2004 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: embolization of endoleak nidus only (group A) and embolization of endoleak nidus and branch vessels (group B). Mean follow-up intervals were 20.5 months ± 14.7 in group A and 24.3 months ± 18.5 in group B. Outcomes were compared between groups by Mann–Whitney U and Pearson χ2 tests. Results Mean interval from endovascular aneurysm repair to embolization was 47.6 months ± 42.9, and mean presentation time of endoleak before embolization was 23.1 months ± 25.8. Coils (n = 28) and liquid embolic agents (n = 23) were used for embolization. There were no significant differences in rates of residual endoleak (50% vs 53.8%; P = .96) or sac decrease/stabilization (62.5% vs 61.5%; P = .64). Procedure time and radiation exposure in group B (132.3 min ± 78.1; 232.4 Gy·cm2 ± 130.7) were greater than in group A (63.4 min ± 11.9; 61.5 Gy·cm2 ± 35.5; P < .01). There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusions Embolization of the endoleak nidus and branch vessels is not superior to embolization of only the nidus in terms of occlusion of type II endoleak and change in sac size despite requiring longer procedure times and resulting in greater patient radiation exposure.

AB - Purpose To compare outcomes of type II endoleak embolization involving embolization of the endoleak nidus only vs embolization of the endoleak nidus and branch vessels in patients treated with endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Materials and Methods Twenty-nine consecutive patients (mean age, 77.9 y; range, 63–88 y) with type II endoleak who underwent embolization from 2004 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: embolization of endoleak nidus only (group A) and embolization of endoleak nidus and branch vessels (group B). Mean follow-up intervals were 20.5 months ± 14.7 in group A and 24.3 months ± 18.5 in group B. Outcomes were compared between groups by Mann–Whitney U and Pearson χ2 tests. Results Mean interval from endovascular aneurysm repair to embolization was 47.6 months ± 42.9, and mean presentation time of endoleak before embolization was 23.1 months ± 25.8. Coils (n = 28) and liquid embolic agents (n = 23) were used for embolization. There were no significant differences in rates of residual endoleak (50% vs 53.8%; P = .96) or sac decrease/stabilization (62.5% vs 61.5%; P = .64). Procedure time and radiation exposure in group B (132.3 min ± 78.1; 232.4 Gy·cm2 ± 130.7) were greater than in group A (63.4 min ± 11.9; 61.5 Gy·cm2 ± 35.5; P < .01). There were no procedure-related complications. Conclusions Embolization of the endoleak nidus and branch vessels is not superior to embolization of only the nidus in terms of occlusion of type II endoleak and change in sac size despite requiring longer procedure times and resulting in greater patient radiation exposure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008235284&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008235284&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.10.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.10.002

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 176

EP - 184

JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 1051-0443

IS - 2

ER -