Esquetini-Vernon, Camila

Introduction Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the primary treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Despite favorable early outcomes, lifelong surveillance is essential as endoleaks remain a major cause of reintervention. Among these, type II endoleaks (T2E) remain controversial regarding optimal management. This study aimed to identify factors associated with intervention for T2E using time-to-event analysis and predefined anatomic thresholds. Secondary objectives included comparing outcomes between T2E patients with (intT2E) and without (nointT2E) intervention. Methods A retrospective review of EVAR procedures from 2011-2024 was performed. Patients with newly diagnosed or persistent T2E were identified on completion and follow-up CT angiography. Patients were categorized as intT2E or nointT2E. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated time to first intervention, and logistic regression served as sensitivity analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves assessed freedom from intervention by inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) size. Results Among 207 EVAR patients, 78 (37.6%) developed T2E over a mean 3.4 ± 2.4 years. Nineteen (24.3%) required intervention. IntT2E patients were younger (74.9 ± 6.8 vs 78.3 ± 7.9 years, P = 0.02), had more frequent anticoagulation use (47.4% vs 20.3%, P = 0.02), larger IMAs (4.2 ± 0.6 vs 3.3 ± 0.7 mm, P < 0.01), and more lumbar arteries (6.0 ± 1.2 vs 5.0 ± 1.3, P = 0.02). IMAs >4 mm occurred in 68.4% of intT2E vs 8.5% of nointT2E ( P < 0.01). Mean sac growth was greater in intT2E (9.7 ± 5.3 mm vs −1.9 ± 6.5 mm, P < 0.01). Thirty-day complications following the index EVAR procedure, mid-term reinterventions, and overall mortality were similar between groups. Post-embolization, T2E resolved in 36.9%, with sac regression in 63.1%. Among embolized patients, 26.3% required a second embolization and one patient required 3 attempts without achieving resolution. IMA >4 mm independently predicted intervention (HR 7.18, 95% CI 1.97-26.16, P < 0.01). Logistic regression confirmed IMA >4 mm (OR 23.4, 95% CI 6.17-88.6, P < 0.01), >6 lumbar arteries (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.10-15.98, P = 0.02), and anticoagulation (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.17-10.6, P = 0.02) as predictors. Conclusions Approximately one-quarter of T2E patients required embolization. IMA >4 mm was the strongest predictor of intervention, while anticoagulation and increased lumbar artery number also increased risk. Management should prioritize risk-stratified surveillance and selective intervention.

Objective To evaluate outcomes in patients with type 2 endoleak (T2E) and the impact of treatment outside the device instructions for use (IFU). Methods This retrospective single-center study included abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) patients who underwent EVAR (2011- 2024). Primary outcomes were 30-day and mid-term complications, reintervention, and mortality by T2E status. Propensity score matching was applied and secondary analysis stratified outcomes by IFU compliance, comparing within ( in IFU) or outside( out IFU) IFU in each T2E group. Results Among 154 EVAR patients (137 men (89.1%) and 17 women (11.0%); mean age 77.5 ± 7.6 years), 77 were T2E(−), and 77 were T2E(+). Baseline characteristics were similar. Thirty-day complications were comparable (T2E(−): 5, 6.4% vs T2E(+): 2, 2.56%, P = 0.72). The mean follow-up duration was 2.7 ± 2.4 years. Sac diameter change (Δ) decreased in the T2E(−) (7.7 ± 8.4 mm) and enlarged in the T2E(+) (1.79 ± 12.5 mm; P < 0.01). Mid-term graft-related complications (T2E(−): 3, 3.8% vs T2E(+): 49, 62.8%, P < 0.01) and reinterventions (T2E(−): 3, 3.8%, vs T2E(+): 20, 25.6% P < 0.01) were higher in the T2E(+) with no difference in mortality ( P = 1.00). These findings remained after excluding type 1 endoleaks. Among the T2E(+), those treated out IFU had longer hospital stays ( out IFU: 3.0 ± 2.8 days vs in IFU: 1.8 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.03), higher T1E ( out IFU: 3, 33.3% vs in IFU: 1, 4.34%, P < 0.01), higher rates of reintervention ( out IFU: 9, 100.0% vs in IFU:17; 24.6%, P < 0.01) and higher all-cause mortality than those within IFU criteria ( out IFU: 5, 55.0% vs in IFU: 13, 18.8%, P < 0.01). IFU status did not significantly affect outcomes in T2E(−) patients. Conclusions T2E is associated with sac growth and increased reinterventions, but not higher mortality. On subgroup analysis, those T2E(+) treated out IFU had longer hospitalizations, higher T1E rates, more reinterventions, and higher all-cause; but not aneurysmal-related mortality.