Embolization Of Side Branches Research Articles

Inadvertent insertion of dialysis catheter into subclavian artery treated with a covered stent: A case report.

When inserting central venous catheters, inadvertent injury of major vessels is a rare yet critical complication. Direct surgery is sometimes overly invasive. This report describes a subclavian artery injury caused by inadvertent cannulation of a dialysis catheter, successfully treated with a covered stent. An 82-year-old woman with acute renal failure due to sepsis required emergency dialysis. During the insertion of a 12-Fr dialysis catheter into the right jugular vein, pulsatile reflux was noted. Computed tomography revealed catheter misplacement in the subclavian artery. Considering the patient's fragility, endovascular repair was performed. After embolization of side branches, a GORE VIABAHN stentgraft was delivered using a pull-through technique and deployed to seal the injury site. The patient was discharged without neurological or vascular complications. Covered stents offer an effective solution for major vessel injuries requiring immediate hemostasis, particularly when direct surgery is complicated by underlying medical or anatomical conditions.

Five-Year Results of Side Branch Embolization Revealed Continued Sac Shrinkage and Less Reintervention After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Five-Year Results of Side Branch Embolization Revealed Continued Sac Shrinkage and Less Reintervention After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

ELECT: prospective, randomized trial comparing microvascular plug versus platinum-fibered microcoils for embolization of aneurysm sac side branches before endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

BackgroundPreemptive selective embolization of aneurysm sac side branches (ASSBs) has been proposed to prevent type II endoleak after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). This study aimed to explore if an embolization strategy using microvascular plugs (MVP) reduces intervention time and radiation dose compared to platinum-fibered microcoils. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the devices in occluding the treated artery was assessed.MethodsSixty patients scheduled for EVAR underwent percutaneous preemptive embolization of ASSBs using MVPs or coils after a 1:1 randomization. Follow-up imaging was performed during aortic stentgraft implantation.ResultsOverall, 170 ASSBs were successfully occluded (83 arteries by MVPs and 87 by coils) and no acute treatment failure occurred. The mean procedure time was significantly lower in the group treated with MVPs (55 ± 4 min) compared to coil occlusion (67 ± 3 min; p = 0.018), which was paralleled by a numerically lower radiation dose (119 Gy/cm2 vs. 140 Gy/cm2; p = 0.45). No difference was found for contrast agent use (34 ml MVP group vs 35 ml coil group; p = 0.87). At follow-up, reopening of lumbar arteries was seen in nine cases (four after coil embolization; five after MVPs).ConclusionBoth microvascular plugs and coils can be effectively used for preemptive embolization of aneurysm sac side branches before EVAR. Use of plugs offers a benefit in terms of intervention time.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03842930 Registered 15 February 2019.Graphical

Midterm outcomes of endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm using the cuff-first technique to prevent type II endoleaks

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the initial and midterm outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using the cuff-first technique (CFT) to prevent type II endoleak (T2EL). MethodsCFT involves deploying an aortic cuff inside the AAA to cover the ostium of the aortic side branch vessels before deploying the main body. We performed a retrospective review of all patients undergoing EVAR with CFT or side branch embolization (SBE) for AAAs at The Jikei University Hospital between 2016 and 2022. Primary endpoint was the rate of aneurysm sac shrinkage. Secondary endpoints were procedure time, radiation exposure, technical and clinical success rates, occurrence of T2EL, and freedom from reintervention or aneurysm-related death. ResultsOf 406 patients who underwent EVAR for AAAs, CFT was utilized in 56 (CFT group) and SBE in 35 (SBE group); all 91 patients were included in this study. There were no differences in patient demographics between groups, but there were differences in patency rate of the inferior mesenteric artery and absent intraluminal thrombus. The technical success rate per target vessel in the CFT and SBE group was 97.8% and 91.8%, and the clinical success rate was 91.0% and 100%, respectively. The median procedure time was shorter for CFT than for SBE: CFT, 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-14) minutes vs SBE, 25 (IQR, 18.5-45) minutes; P < .05), and median radiation exposure was lower for CFT than for SBE (CFT, 1455 (IQR, 840-2634) mGy vs SBE, 2353 (IQR, 1552-3586) mGy; P < .05). During the median follow-up of 25 months (IQR, 12.5-47 months), sac shrinkage occurred at similar rates in both groups (CFT, 37.5% vs SBE, 40.0%; P = .812), and there were no differences in freedom from reintervention (CFT, 96.2% and 91.4% at 12 and 36 months vs SBE, 100% and 89.5% at 12 and 36 months; log-rank P = .761) and freedom from aneurysm-related death (100% at 36 months in both groups; log-rank P = .440). The odds ratio of CFT vs SBE for sac regression was calculated by adjusting for inferior mesenteric artery patency and absent intraluminal thrombus, resulting in no statistical significance (odds ratio, 1.231; 95% confidence interval, 0.486-3.122). ConclusionsCFT is feasible with a shorter procedure time and lower radiation exposure than SBE and comparable mid-term outcomes, including sac shrinkage rate, compared with SBE. We believe that CFT, if anatomically suitable, is an alternative to SBE for the prevention of T2EL during EVAR.

Side branch embolization before endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair to prevent type II endoleak: A prospective multicenter study

PurposeThe purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pre-emptive transcatheter arterial embolization (P-TAE) of aortic side branches to prevent type II endoleak in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR). Materials and methodsThis multicenter, prospective, single-arm trial enrolled 100 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm from nine hospitals between 2018 and 2021. There were 85 men and 15 women, with a mean age of 79.6 ± 6.0 (standard deviation) years (range: 65–97 years). P-TAE was attempted for patent aortic side branches, including the inferior mesenteric artery, lumbar arteries, and other branches. The primary endpoint was late type II endoleak incidence at 6 months post-repair. Secondary endpoints included changes in aneurysmal sac diameter at 6- and 12 months, complications, re-intervention, and aneurysm-related mortality. Aneurysm sac changes at 6- and 12 months was compared between the late and no-late type II endoleak groups. ResultsCoil embolization was successful in 80.9% (321/397) of patent aortic side branches, including 86.3% of the inferior mesenteric arteries, 80.3% of lumbar arteries, and 55.6% of other branches without severe adverse events. Late type II endoleak incidence at 6 months was 8.9% (8/90; 95% confidence interval: 3.9–16.8%). Aneurysm sac shrinkage > 5 mm was observed in 41.1% (37/90) and 55.3% (47/85) of the patients at 6- and 12-months post-EVAR, respectively. Patients with late type II endoleak had less aneurysm sac shrinkage than those without type II endoleak at 12 months (˗0.2 mm vs. ˗6.0 mm; P = 0.040). No patients required re-intervention for type II endoleak, and no aneurysm-related mortalities occurred. ConclusionP-TAE is safe and effective in preventing type II endoleak, leading to early sac shrinkage at 12 months following EVAR.

Pre-emptive Aortic Side Branch Embolization during Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Using the Excluder Stent-Graft System: A Prospective Multicenter study

PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre-emptive transcatheter arterial embolization (P-TAE) for aortic side branches (ASBs) to prevent Type 2 endoleaks (EL2) before endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the Excluder stent-graft system (Excluder). Materials and MethodsIn this prospective, multicenter study, 80 patients (mean age, 79.1 years [SD ± 6.7]; 85.0% were men; mean aneurysmal sac diameter, 48.4 mm [SD ± 7.4]) meeting the eligibility criteria were prospectively enrolled from 9 hospitals. Before EVAR, P-TAE was performed to embolize the patent ASBs originating from the abdominal aortic aneurysm. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) was performed at 1 month and 6 months after EVAR. The primary endpoint was EL2 incidence at 6 months, and the secondary endpoints were aneurysmal sac diameter changes at 6 and 12 months, P-TAE outcomes, adverse events related to P-TAE, reintervention, and aneurysm-related mortality. ResultsAll patients successfully underwent P-TAE without serious. Coil embolization was successful in 81.6% of ASBs. EL2 incidence at 6 months was identified in 18 of 70 (25.7%) patients. Aneurysmal sac diameter shrinkage (≥5 mm) was observed in 30.0% of patients at 6 months and in 40.9% at 12 months. Only 1 patient required reintervention for EL2 within 1 year of EVAR; aneurysm-related deaths were not observed. ConclusionsP-TAE for ASBs before EVAR using Excluder is a safe and effective strategy. It aids in achieving early aneurysmal sac shrinkage and reduces EL2 reintervention at 1 year after EVAR.

Safety of preoperative branch embolization in patients undergoing evar.

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the safety of pre-endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) embolization of aortic side branches - the inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar arteries. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed. A search of MEDLINE and DIMENSION databases identified 9 studies published from 2011 to 2021 that satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies were analyzed to detect the incidence of embolization-related complications. A total of 482 patients underwent preoperative aortic side branch embolization, 30 (6.2%) of whom suffered some kind of minor complication. The only major complication observed was ischemic colitis in 4 (0.82%) patients, two (0.41%) of whom died after bowel resection surgery. Regarding these findings, aortic side branch embolization seems to be a safe procedure, with very low percentages of both minor and major complications.

Midterm outcomes of side branch embolization and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveTo analyze the effects of total side branch embolization at endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms on the incidences of persistent type 2 endoleak (pT2EL), changes in sac diameter, and reintervention. MethodsBetween 2013 and 2021, all patients who underwent primary EVAR with a few exceptions were included. Side branch embolization was considered during EVAR for inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) or IMA plus lumbar artery (LA) when feasible for contrast agent use. Outcomes measured were pT2EL, sac diameters, reintervention, ruptures, and aneurysm-related mortality. Radiation exposure and safety outcomes were also reported. ResultsAmong 732 patients who underwent EVAR, 616 (84.2%) were included. Of the 616 patients, 223 (36.2%) did not undergo side branch embolization (NO-E), whereas 228 (37.0%) underwent IMA only (IMA-E) and 165 (26.8%) underwent IMA+LA including median sacral artery (IMA+LA-E). The technical success rate of IMA and LA embolization was 97.0% and 74.7%, respectively. Crude incidences of pT2EL were significantly different from 6 months through 3 years (NO-E, 27.8%; IMA-E, 31.7%; IMA+LA-E, 9.4% at 3 years; P = .007). In the multivariate analysis adjusted for background differences, the incidences of pT2EL were significantly higher in the NO-E (odds ratio [OR], 3.21; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.08-9.57; P = .004) and IMA-E (OR, 4.86; 95% CIs, 1.68-14.11; P = .004) compared with the IMA+LA-E group. Similarly, any reintervention until 3 years was significantly frequent in the NO-E (OR, 5.26; 95% CIs, 1.76-15.70; P = .003) and IMA-E group (OR, 4.19; 95% CIs, 1.38-12.67; P = .01). Surgical conversion and secondary rupture were seen only in 1 patient without any aneurysm-related mortality. Percent sac shrinkage from the baseline was significantly promoted in the IMA+LA group (NO-E, 12.1% ± 16.6%; IMA-E, 11.4% ± 16.7%; IMA+LA-E, 18.0% ± 18.8%; P = .047). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in the IMA+LA-E group (NO-E, 60.2 ± 47.4 minutes; IMA-E, 59.3 ± 39.5 minutes; IMA+LA-E, 75.5 ± 42.8 minutes; P < .0001), and so do the dose-area product (NO-E, 424.6 ± 333.4 Gy cm2; IMA-E, 477.7 ± 342.4 Gy cm2; IMA+LA-E, 631.8 ± 449.1 Gy cm2; P < .0001). No embolization-related complications or radiation-related adverse events were recorded. ConclusionsPre-emptive embolization of IMA, LAs, and median sacral artery at the time of EVAR reduced the incidences of pT2EL and any reintervention and promoted sac shrinkage during the follow-up period of 3 years.

Impact of System-F in Delivering Vascular Plugs for Aortic Side Branch Embolization During Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

This study aimed to illustrate the utility of our original system to deliver vascular plugs into aortic side branches during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Our device, which we named "System-F," consists of a 14 Fr sheath, a 12 Fr long sheath with a side hole, a stiff guidewire as a shaft, and a parallelly-inserted delivery catheter navigated through the side hole into the aneurysm sac. Vertical motion and horizontal rotation of the side hole allow multidimensional movement of the delivery catheter within the aneurysm. This system was applied in 7 cases undergoing EVAR; 4 inferior mesenteric arteries and 14 lumbar arteries were embolized using vascular plugs. Type II endoleak (T2EL) was not observed in the follow-up survey of any case. Conclusion: The applicability of System-F for vascular plug placement in the side branches of abdominal aortic aneurysms has the potential to achieve high delivery capability and be widely applied for the prevention of T2EL. System-F has potential to change the strategies of pre-EVAR embolization.

Role of Aggressive Aneurysm Sac Embolization Before Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair in Preventing Type II Endoleak and Sac Expansion

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of aggressive embolization of side branches arising from the aneurysmal sac before endovascular aneurysm repair. This retrospective study included 95 patients who underwent endovascular infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair at Tottori University Hospital between October 2016 and January 2021. Of these, 54 underwent standard endovascular aneurysm repair (conventional group), and 41 underwent coiling of the inferior mesenteric and lumbar arteries before undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (embolization group). The occurrence of type II endoleak, change in aneurysmal sac diameter, and reintervention rate due to type II endoleak during follow-up were evaluated. Compared to the conventional group, the embolization group had a significantly lower incidence of type II endoleak, more frequent aneurysmal sac shrinkage, and lower aneurysmal sac growth related to type II endoleak. Our results demonstrated the effectiveness of aggressive aneurysmal sac embolization before endovascular aneurysm repair to prevent type II endoleak and the consequent long-term aneurysmal sac enlargement.

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Shrinkage up to 2 Years Following Endovascular Repair with PEmbolization for Preventing Type 2 Endoleak: A Retrospective Single Center Study

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of preemptive embolization of aneurysm side branches that cause type 2 endoleak (T2EL). We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in our facility between April 2009 and April 2019. All the patients underwent the preemptive embolization for preventing T2EL since April 2014. The patients were divided into the nonembolization group (between April 2009 and May 2014) or the embolization group (between April 2014 and April 2019). We used a support wire to improve a success rate of the preemptive embolization. The aneurysm sac shrinkage (≧5mm), freedom from all-cause death and aneurysm-related death, T2EL-related reinterventions, aneurysm sac enlargement (≧5mm), and complications related to the endovascular procedure were compared between the 2 groups. Two-hundred patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm were included. They were divided into the nonembolization group (N=103) and the embolization group (N=97). We successfully embolized 89% of all the patent aneurysm side branches in the embolization group. The characteristics of the 2 groups were similar except for hypertension, patent lumbar arteries, and the use of Zenith, Excluder, and Endurant. The preemptive embolization group showed better aneurysm sac shrinkage (73% vs. 42%; P<0.0001), no aneurysm sac enlargement (0% vs. 5%; P<0.05), and lower T2EL-related reintervention rate (hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.0061-0.60; P<0.01) up to 2years after EVAR. There were no significant differences in freedom from all-cause death, aneurysm-related death, and complications between the 2 groups. The present study showed the high success rate of preemptive embolization of aneurysm side branches resulting in better anatomical changes in the aneurysm sac and lower T2EL-related intervention rate in the embolization group up to 2years after EVAR.

Society for Vascular Surgery implementation of clinical practice guidelines for patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: Endoleak management

Society for Vascular Surgery implementation of clinical practice guidelines for patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: Endoleak management

Type II endoleak and aortic aneurysm sac shrinkage after preemptive embolization of aneurysm sac side branches

ObjectiveType II endoleak (T2EL) is the most common endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Its optimal management has been controversially discussed. Thus, preliminary selective embolization of aneurysm sac side branches (ASSBs) has been adopted to prevent T2EL. Our goal was to determine the rate of T2EL and the diameter decrease of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) after EVAR performed after preemptive embolization of ASSBs. MethodsFrom September 2014 to September 2019, 139 patients with AAAs underwent percutaneous ASSB embolization before EVAR. Follow-up imaging studies were performed at 1 and 6 months and annually thereafter. The end points included freedom from T2EL, AAA sac shrinkage, T2EL-related reinterventions, and all-cause mortality. ResultsThe mean follow-up was 23 ± 16 months (range, 1-61 months). The patients had had a median of five (range, one to eight) patent ASSBs found on preoperative imaging studies. After completion of embolization, 76.4% of the initially patent ASSBs were occluded, with no major procedure-related complications. Follow-up imaging studies showed T2ELs in seven patients (5%), with an aneurysm sac increase seen in six of these patients. The number of ASSBs remaining patent after embolization was the only discriminative factor in patients with and without T2EL. Six T2EL-related reinterventions were performed during follow-up. Most patients (n = 91; 86.7%) had experienced aneurysm sac shrinkage, and the mean diameter reduction was 9.2 ± 7.7 mm (P < .001) in all patients with follow-up data available. One aneurysm-related death occurred within 30 days after EVAR. ConclusionsPreemptive embolization of ASSBs for patients with AAAs is safe and effective in preventing T2ELs after EVAR. Aneurysm sac shrinkage was observed in a high proportion of patients.

Predictive Factor of the Possibility for Aortic Side Branches Coil Embolization during Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

Objective: Coil embolization of aortic side branches has been additionally performed to prevent type II endoleak during EVAR in our institute. In this study, we evaluated the predictive factors of the possibility for coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and lumbar artery (LA) during EVAR.Methods: Seventy-four EVAR patients during June 2015 and April 2019 were included in the study. The coil embolization procedural time for one vessel is limited to 10 min. Aortic side branches were selected with 4 Fr Shepherd hook type catheter (Medikit, Tokyo, Japan) and were embolized with Interlock (Boston Scientific, MA, USA) via microcatheter. As predictive factors, internal diameter of aortic side branches and the aortic diameter perpendicular to the origin of LA (aortic diameter) were evaluated.Results: Coil embolization was tried for 52 patent IMAs and all IMAs except two IMAs with ostial stenosis were successfully coil embolized (96.2%). Totally 190 LAs were patent and coil embolization was tried for 144 LAs. Among 144 LAs, 106 LAs (73.6%) were successfully coil embolized and the diameter was significantly longer (2.30±0.51 mm vs. 2.04±0.41 mm, p=0.007) and aortic dimeter was significantly shorter (30.0±8.1 mm vs. 40.5±11.6 mm, p<0.001) in successfully embolized LAs. Cut off value of successful LA coil embolization was 2.06 mm for internal diameter and 36.1 mm for aortic diameter by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Successful coil embolization rate for LAs with internal diameter longer than 2.0 mm and aortic diameter less than 36.2 mm was 90% (72 among 80 LAs).Conclusion: Coil embolization during EVAR for IMA was highly successful, if there was no calcified ostial stenosis. LA embolization was feasible especially for LAs with internal diameter ≥2.0 mm and aortic diameter ≤36.1 mm. This information would be useful to select the target vessel for aortic side branches coil embolization during EVAR. (This is a translation of Jpn J Vasc Surg 2019; 28: 389–396.)

Pre-emptive Embolization of Aortic Side Branches Prior to Endovascular Aortic Repair to Prevent Type II Endoleaks: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Endoleak occurs in over 10% of patients after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of aortic aneurysm. Type II endoleaks are the most common type and may cause late sac expansion and rupture. To prevent this, pre-emptive embolization of aortic side branches (mainly inferior mesenteric artery [IMA] and lumbar arteries [LA]), before or during EVAR has been suggested. Our aim was to review the current evidence of this prophylactic treatment. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. The MEDLINE and Scopus databases were used to search for related articles until March 2019. Search algorithm included keywords “type II endoleak” and “EVAR [OR] endovascular aortic repair” with combination of “inferior mesenteric artery”, “lumbar artery”, "accessory renal artery” or “median sacral artery”. After screening, original studies reporting outcome of pre-emptive embolization of aortic side branches were included in the review. An assessment of the quality of the included studies, as well as data extraction, was performed by two independent observers. Statistical analysis was performed using OpenMeta[Analyst] (www.cebm.brown.edu/openmeta/index.html). Results: A total of 3,777 publications were identified based on search strategy. After eliminating duplicated entries, review of titles and abstracts, 13 retrospective cohort studies, including 1,586 patients, comparing pre-emptive embolization to standard EVAR therapy were identified. All studies were scored as medium or low quality. Another two single-arm series were also reviewed for technical success and complications. Results from eleven studies showed that technical success of IMA and LA embolization were 84.6% (230/272) and 67.9% (91/134) respectively. Based on thirteen studies, the incidence of type II endoleaks was 18.0% (107/593) in the embolization group vs 35.8% (355/993) in the control group, odds ratio 0.35 (95% C.I. 0.23 - 0.53). Based on ten studies, the incidence of re-intervention was 1.5% (7/480) in the embolization group vs. 11.1% (74/668) in the control group, odds ratio 0.14 (95% C.I. 0.07 - 0.29). In six studies, frequency of sac growth after EVAR was 4.5% (15/333) in the embolization group vs. 14.2% (68/478) in controls, odds ratio 0.17 (95% C.I. 0.05 - 0.65). Regarding complications, ten of 108 patients (9.3%) in one study reported non-specific abdominal pain after embolization, and all resolved with overnight rehydration. One patient (0.01%), in the same study, who had prior right hemicolectomy, died after IMA embolization. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that pre-emptive aortic side branch embolization prior to standard EVAR may reduce the incidence of type II endoleaks and re-interventions. Studies report high technical success rates, particularly for IMA embolization. Caution is needed when disturbed collateral colonic circulation is present. However, there is a lack of high-quality unbiased studies in this field. To conclude that embolization should be routinely performed, randomized evidence of any benefits and cost-effectiveness is needed. Disclosure: Nothing to disclose

Sac Embolization and Side Branch Embolization for Preventing Type II Endoleaks After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Meta-analysis

Purpose:To investigate the efficacy and safety of preoperative side branch embolization or intraoperative sac embolization for preventing type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify studies that evaluated the outcomes of sac embolization vs no embolization or side branch embolization vs no embolization in patients who received EVAR. Among the 904 studies screened, 17 studies with 2084 participants were included in this review. Outcome measures included the type II endoleak rate, the reintervention rate for type II endoleaks, the incidence of types I/III endoleaks, and the rate of complications. Fixed (no heterogeneity) or random effects models were constructed for each outcome; the results are presented as the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The sac embolization group had significantly lower type II endoleak (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p<0.001) and reintervention (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33, p<0.001) rates than the no embolization group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were found for the type I/III endoleak rate (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37, p=0.21) or complication rate (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.70, p=0.77). Compared with no embolization, side branch embolization was also associated with a decrease in type II endoleak (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60, p<0.001) and reinterventions (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27, p<0.001). One severe procedure-related complication (fatal colon ischemia) was reported in the side branch embolization group. Conclusion: Sac embolization and side branch embolization are safe and effective in preventing type II endoleaks. Further randomized trials are needed to directly compare the clinical outcomes of these procedures.

Preoperative Coil Embolization of Side Branches and Postoperative Antifibrinolytic Therapy in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Propensity Score Analysis

PurposeTo demonstrate feasibility and efficacy of preoperative coil embolization of side branches and postoperative tranexamic acid (TXA) therapy for management of type II endoleak and aneurysmal sac regression after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Materials and MethodsThis study included 284 patients who underwent EVAR between 2007 and 2014. In 133 patients (group A), since March 2012, preoperative coil embolization of side branches and postoperative TXA therapy had been introduced as a modified strategy after EVAR, including combined coil embolization and TXA therapy (n = 41), coil embolization only (n = 17), and TXA therapy only (n = 75). The remaining 151 patients (group B) underwent EVAR with no coil embolization and TXA therapy. After propensity score matching, postoperative results were retrospectively compared between 92 matched pairs (group A vs group B). ResultsMatched comparison revealed no significant difference in incidence rate of type II endoleak at 6 months after EVAR between group A and group B (19.6% [18/92] vs 29.4% [27/92]; P = .1172). A significantly greater shrinkage of sac size at 6 months after EVAR (−8.5% ± 11.6 vs −3.6% ± 8.4; P = .0011) and significantly more rapid pace of sac shrinkage (change of size per year; −4.2 mm/y ± 7.6 vs −1.9 mm/y ± 6.1; P = .0301) were observed in group A. ConclusionsCombined preoperative coil embolization of side branches and postoperative TXA therapy were associated with significantly more rapid aneurysmal sac regression after EVAR.

Physiologic Functional Evaluation of Left Internal Mammary Artery Graft to Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Steal due to Unligated First Thoracic Branch in a Case of Refractory Angina.

Unligated side branches of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) have been described in the literature as a cause of coronary steal resulting in angina. Despite a number of studies reporting successful side branch embolization to relieve symptoms, this phenomenon remains controversial. Hemodynamic evidence of coronary steal using angiographic and intravascular Doppler techniques has been supported by some and rejected by others. In this case study using an intracoronary Doppler wire with adenosine, we demonstrate that a trial occlusion of the LIMA thoracic side branch with selective balloon inflation can confirm physiologic significant steal and whether coil embolization of the side branch is indicated.

Biodegradable flow-diverting device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysm: short-term results of a rabbit experiment

One main complication of a flow-diverting device (FD) in treating intracranial aneurysm is stenosis of parent artery (PA) or occlusion of side branches. The use of a biodegradable device may satisfy the need for aneurysm occlusion and eliminate potential complications. Twenty elastase-induced aneurysm rabbit models were divided into three groups: in group 1 (n = 7), polyglycolic acid FDs (PGA-FDs) were implanted across the necks of aneurysms and the abdominal aortas (AA), covering the ostium of a lumbar artery; in group 2 (n = 7), the PGA-FDs were replaced by metal FDs; and in group 3 (n = 6), the PGA-FDs were only implanted across the necks of aneurysms. Animals in group 3 underwent angiography at 6weeks; those in groups 1 and 2 underwent angiography at 3months. The status of aneurysm embolization and patency of side branches were assessed. Complete aneurysm occlusion rates in groups 1 and 3 were 83.3 and 66.7%, respectively, compared with 0% in group 2. No side branch occlusions were noted. PA neointimal hyperplasia was minimal, and there were no significant differences between groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.233). The neointimal coverage ratio of the branch ostium in AA in group 1 was not significantly different from that in group 2 (P = 0.605). The neointima comprised predominantly smooth muscle cells and collagen fibers. The PGA-FD was an effective device for the treatment of aneurysms and was safe for side branches at the 3-month follow-up.

Side-Branch Embolization Before 90Y Radioembolization: Rate of Recanalization and New Collateral Development

The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of recanalization and collateral vessel formation after side-branch embolization during mapping angiography for planned (90)Y radioembolization. Patients who underwent side-branch embolization at mapping angiography before (90)Y administration were included. Embolized vessels included the gastroduodenal artery, right gastric artery, and accessory arteries. Four interventional radiologists reviewed follow-up angiograms to assess recanalization and new collateral formation of embolized vessels. The time to recanalization or new collateral formation was tracked within 60 days and after the final arteriographic study. Differences in outcome among patients who had and those who had not undergone previous arterial directed therapy were reviewed. Fifty-six patients underwent side-branch embolization and follow-up arteriography; 124 treatments were performed after side-branch embolization (median, 2; range, 1-7), and the median follow-up period was 134 days (range, 7-684 days). Recanalization or new collateral vessel formation was found in 6 of 56 patients (10.7%) and in 8 of 56 patients (14.3%) 60 days after treatment or at final angiography, respectively. Embolization of 110 arteries was accomplished (42 gastroduodenal arteries, 46 right gastric arteries, and 22 accessory arteries). Two of 110 arteries (1.8%) recanalized, and four of 110 (3.6%) had new collateral vessels within 60 days. At final evaluation, 2 of 110 arteries (1.8%) had recanalized and 7 of 110 (6.4%) had new collaterals. Previous liver-directed therapy did not affect outcome (p > 0.05). No patient had symptomatic gastrointestinal ulceration. In more than 89% of patients, side-branch embolization provides durable occlusion for (90)Y radioembolization without collateral development or recanalization for a bilobar cycle of therapy. Further recanalization and collateral development at longer-term follow-up are minimal.