Outcome Analysis of Pre-Emptive Embolization of the Collateral Branches of the Abdominal Aorta During Standard Infrarenal Endovascular Aortic Repair
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Objectives: To report the results of pre-emptive embolization of collateral branches of the abdominal aorta in patients undergoing standard bifurcated EVAR versus those undergoing standard EVAR without embolization. Methods: This study is a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort analysis of consecutive patients who underwent elective standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) between 1 October 2013, and 31 December 2022, with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. The patients were divided into two groups: group A, which did not receive embolization, and group B, which underwent pre-emptive embolization of aortic collateral branches. The primary outcomes for this study include overall survival, freedom from aorta-related mortality (ARM), and freedom from reinterventions related to type 2 endoleak (T2E). In cases of multiple reinterventions, only the first one was considered for this analysis. The secondary outcome focused on assessing freedom from aneurysm sac enlargement. Results: We analyzed a total of 265 endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs): 183 (69.1%) were classified into group A, and 82 (30.9%) into group B. The median follow-up duration was 48 months [interquartile range (IQR), 28–65.5], which was not significantly different between the two groups [45 months (26–63) in group A vs. 52.5 months (29.5–72.5) in group B, p = 0.098]. The estimated cumulative survival rates were 87% (0.2) at 2 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.6–92.9) and 67% (0.3) at 5 years (95% CI: 60.3–73.1), with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.263). The aorta-related mortality rate was 1.1% (n = 3); all instances occurred following open conversion due to graft infection (n = 2) and in one case of secondary aortic rupture (n = 1). In total, 34 cases (12.8%) indicated a secondary intervention related to type 2 endoleak (T2E). The freedom from T2E-related reintervention rate was 99% (0.01) at 2 years (95% CI: 99.4–99.8) and 88% (0.3) at 5 years (95% CI: 81.4–92.5), with no differences between the groups (p = 0.282). Cox regression analysis revealed that age over 80 years is an independent negative predictor of survival, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.27–5.50; p < 0.001). Additionally, T2E-related reintervention was identified as a negative predictor, with an HR of 2.4 (95% CI: 1.05–5.54; p = 0.037). In this study, conversion to open repair was necessary for 14 patients (5.3%), with three conversions occurring due to rupture; however, T2E was not a determining factor in any of these conversions. At the last available follow-up computed tomography angiography (CT-A), the median aneurysm diameter was significantly lower in group B, measuring 44 mm (range 37.7–50), compared to group A, measuring 48 mm (range 39–57.5) (p < 0.001). Both groups showed a significant change from baseline measurements (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Pre-emptive embolization of the aortic collateral branches does not lead to improved aorta-related outcomes after EVAR.