Inferior mesenteric artery embolization before endovascular aneurysm repair: technique and initial results.

Department of Radiology, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, New York, USA.
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (Impact Factor: 2). 11/2004; 15(11):1263-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000141342.42484.90
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To report a single center's technique and initial results in the preoperative embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) before endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).
Over a 3-year period, 102 patients at a single clinical site, including 86 men and 16 women aged 54-93 years (mean, 75 years), were found to have a patent IMA on computed tomographic (CT) angiography before EVAR. Coil embolization was performed after subselective catheterization with use of microcoils placed in the IMA proximal to the origin of the left colic artery. All patients in whom the IMA was visualized on flush aortography and successfully accessed underwent embolization. One month and 6 months after surgery, results in this cohort were retrospectively compared with those from a similar group of patients who underwent EVAR during the same period. These patients had patent IMAs on preoperative CT angiography but did not undergo embolization as a result of nonvisualization during flush aortography. All patients underwent EVAR with bifurcated modular devices with proximal transrenal fixation. All patients underwent postoperative follow-up with multiphase CT angiography to detect the presence of endoleak. Six-month follow-up data were available for 18 patients who underwent embolization and 54 patients who did not. Change in sac diameter was compared in these patients.
Embolization was technically successful in 30 of 32 patients (94%) in whom it was attempted. There were no complications. At 1-month follow-up, five of 30 patients in the embolization group were noted to have a type II endoleak (17%). None of the endoleaks in this group were related to the IMA. The group with patent IMAs who did not undergo preoperative embolization had a 42% incidence of type II endoleak (P < .05). At 6 months after surgery, three of 18 patients who had undergone embolization (17%) had a type II endoleak, compared with 26 of 54 in the other group (48%; P < .05). Among the patients in whom 6-month data were available, mean changes in sac diameter were -5.2 mm (range, -24 to 2 mm) in the embolized group and -2.1 mm (range, -19 to 8 mm) in the nonembolized group.
These initial results demonstrate that embolization of the IMA with subselective microcoils before EVAR is a safe and effective procedure to reduce the incidence of type II endoleaks. The data also suggest that preoperative embolization of the IMA is associated with greater shrinkage of aneurysm sac diameter at 6 months.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: We describe the anatomic characteristics on preoperative CT angiography (CTA) that predispose to type-2 endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for an abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: Between 1999 and 2010, 326 patients had a CTA before and after EVAR. CTAs were reviewed for maximal sac diameter, >50 % circumferential luminal thrombus, and patency of the infrarenal aortic side branches, including the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and L2-L5 lumbar arteries. Postoperative CTAs were reviewed for a persistent type-2 endoleak. RESULTS: Of 326 patients, 30.4 % had a type-2 endoleak on CTA. Univariate analysis demonstrated a patent IMA, increased patent individual L2, L3, and L4 lumbar arteries, and an increased number of total patent lumbar arteries in patients with type-2 endoleak compared to those without (p < 0.001, 0.002, <0.001, <0.001, and <0.001 respectively). Sac diameter, patent L5 lumbar arteries, and >50 % circumferential mural thrombus were not significantly different (p = 0.652, 0.617, and 0.16). Univariate logistic regression demonstrated increased risk of endoleak with each additional patent lumbar artery (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis of the 326 patients resulted in the delineation of the optimal anatomic variables that predicted a type-2 endoleak: occluded L3 lumbar arteries (OR 0.1, p = 0.002), occluded L4 lumbar vertebral arteries (OR 0.31, p = 0.034), and IMA occlusion (OR 0.38, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Univariate analysis demonstrated total patent lumbar arteries as a significant predictor of type-2 endoleak. Multivariate analysis demonstrated IMA occlusion, L3 lumbar artery occlusion, and L4 lumbar artery occlusion as independently protective against type-2 endoleak after EVAR.
    CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 05/2013; · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Amplatzer Vascular Plug type 4 (AVP-4) for embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) before endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of the abdominal aorta to prevent endoleaks. A single-center retrospective review of 31 patients who underwent IMA embolizations before EVAR using the AVP-4 was performed. We analyzed the insertion and detachment procedure, the technical success, and the final position of the plug. Technical success was defined as complete occlusion of the IMA. To compare the incidence of IMA-related type II endoleaks in patients with and without preoperative IMA embolization, we additionally reviewed the course of 43 patients with a preoperatively patent IMA who underwent no IMA embolization. Plugs with a diameter of 5, 6, and 8 mm were used in 5 (16.1 %), 21 (67.7 %), and 5 (16.1 %) patients, respectively (50-100 % oversizing). In 29 of 31 patients (93.5 %), we observed complete occlusion of the IMA within 10 min (mean 5.1 min). Precise placement of the plug in the proximal segment of the IMA without occlusion of the first IMA branches was achievable in all patients. The distance between the AVP-4 and the first branches was on average 12 (range 2-57) mm. Preoperative IMA embolization with AVP-4 significantly reduced the incidence of complex IMA-lumbar type II endoleaks after EVAR (0/31 vs. 11/43; p = 0.002). The AVP-4 is a safe, feasible, and technically effective embolization device for IMA embolization before EVAR.
    CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 10/2013; · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is known that following an endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedure, patients may experience endoleaks, device migration, stent fractures, graft deterioration, or aneurysm growth that might require a reintervention. In this review management strategies of reinterventions after EVAR in contemporary practice will be discussed. The current endovascular treatment options of Type I endoleak involve securing of the attachment site with percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty, stent-graft extension, or placement of a stent at the proximal attachment site. Moreover, the use of endostaples to secure the position of the proximal cuff to the primary endograft have been developed. Type II endoleaks can be managed conservatively if the aneurysm is shrinking or remains stable. Otherwise, reinterventions include transarterial embolization, translumbar embolization, transcaval embolization, direct thrombin injection, and endoscopic or open ligation of the lumbar and mesenteric arteries. There is little debate regarding the treatment of type III endoleaks, including deployement of additional stent graft components to bridge the defect. Endovascular treatment of endotension includes endovascular conversion stent or relining of the stent graft. Alternative options are puncture of the aneurysm sac and removal of the aneurysm sac content. In case of migration large balloon-expandable stents can be used to improve the seal between the components, or devices that deploy staples to secure endovascular grafts to the aortic wall to secure endovascular components together. In conclusion, the first treatment options for reinterventions after EVAR are catheter based nowadays.
    The Journal of cardiovascular surgery 08/2012; 53(4):411-8. · 1.51 Impact Factor