Blog
About

4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Type II endoleaks: challenges and solutions

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Type II endoleaks are the most common endovascular complications of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR); however, there has been a divided opinion regarding their significance in EVAR. Some advocate a conservative approach unless there is clear evidence of sac expansion, while others maintain early intervention is best to prevent adverse late outcomes such as rupture. There is a lack of level-one evidence in this challenging group of patients, and due to a low event rate of complications, large numbers of patients would be required in well-designed trials to fully understand the natural history of type II endoleak. This review will discuss the imaging, management, and outcome of patients with isolated type II endoleaks following infra-renal EVAR.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 78

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

          Few data are available on the long-term outcome of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm as compared with open repair. From 1999 through 2004 at 37 hospitals in the United Kingdom, we randomly assigned 1252 patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or = 5.5 cm in diameter) to undergo either endovascular or open repair; 626 patients were assigned to each group. Patients were followed for rates of death, graft-related complications, reinterventions, and resource use until the end of 2009. Logistic regression and Cox regression were used to compare outcomes in the two groups. The 30-day operative mortality was 1.8% in the endovascular-repair group and 4.3% in the open-repair group (adjusted odds ratio for endovascular repair as compared with open repair, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.87; P=0.02). The endovascular-repair group had an early benefit with respect to aneurysm-related mortality, but the benefit was lost by the end of the study, at least partially because of fatal endograft ruptures (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.49; P=0.73). By the end of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death from any cause (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.23; P=0.72). The rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions were higher with endovascular repair, and new complications occurred up to 8 years after randomization, contributing to higher overall costs. In this large, randomized trial, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a significantly lower operative mortality than open surgical repair. However, no differences were seen in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality in the long term. Endovascular repair was associated with increased rates of graft-related complications and reinterventions and was more costly. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN55703451.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European society for vascular surgery.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

              For patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms, randomized trials have shown an initial overall survival benefit for elective endovascular repair over conventional open repair. This survival difference, however, was no longer significant in the second year after the procedure. Information regarding the comparative outcome more than 2 years after surgery is important for clinical decision making. We conducted a long-term, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 351 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The primary outcomes were rates of death from any cause and reintervention. Survival was calculated with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods on an intention-to-treat basis. We randomly assigned 178 patients to undergo open repair and 173 to undergo endovascular repair. Six years after randomization, the cumulative survival rates were 69.9% for open repair and 68.9% for endovascular repair (difference, 1.0 percentage point; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.8 to 10.8; P=0.97). The cumulative rates of freedom from secondary interventions were 81.9% for open repair and 70.4% for endovascular repair (difference, 11.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.0 to 21.0; P=0.03). Six years after randomization, endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar rates of survival. The rate of secondary interventions was significantly higher for endovascular repair. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00421330.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Vasc Health Risk Manag
                Vasc Health Risk Manag
                Vascular Health and Risk Management
                Vascular Health and Risk Management
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-6344
                1178-2048
                2016
                02 March 2016
                : 12
                : 53-63
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Vascular Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
                [2 ]Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Institute for Health Research Leicester Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: David A Sidloff, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Level 2, RKCSB, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK, Tel +44 773 683 3606, Email ds343@ 123456le.ac.uk
                Article
                vhrm-12-053
                10.2147/VHRM.S81275
                4780400
                27042087
                © 2016 Brown et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Review

                Cardiovascular Medicine

                embolization, aorta, endovascular, endograft, endoleak

                Comments

                Comment on this article