Search

Introduction: Type III endoleaks post-endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) warrant treatment because they increase pressure within the aneurysm sac leading to increased rupture risk. The treatment may be difficult with regular endovascular devices. Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) might provide a treatment option for type III endoleaks, especially if located near the flow divider. This study aims to analyze clinical outcomes of EVAS for type III endoleaks after EVAR., Methods: This is an international, retrospective, observational cohort study including data from 8 European institutions., Results: A total of 20 patients were identified of which 80% had a type IIIb endoleak and the remainder (20%) a type IIIa endoleak. The median time between EVAR and EVAS was 49.5 months (28.5-89). Mean AAA diameter prior to EVAS revision was 76.6±19.9 mm. Technical success was achieved in 95%, 1 patient had technical failure due to a postoperative myocardial infarction resulting in death. Mean follow-up was 22.8±15.2 months. During follow-up 1 patient had a type Ia endoleak, and 1 patient had a new type IIIa endoleak at an untreated location. There were 5 patients with aneurysm growth. Five patients underwent AAA-related reinterventions indications being: growth with type II endoleak (n=3), type Ia endoleak (n=1), and iliac aneurysm (n=1). At 1-year follow-up, the freedom from clinical failure was 77.5%, freedom from all-cause mortality 94.7%, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality 95%, and freedom from aneurysm-related reinterventions 93.8%., Conclusion: The EVAS relining can be safely performed to treat type III endoleaks with an acceptable technical success rate, a low 30-day mortality rate and no secondary ruptures at short-term follow-up. The relatively low clinical success rates, related to reinterventions and AAA enlargement, highlight the need for prolonged follow-up.

Background: False-positive diagnosis of acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (AAD) on computed tomography angiography (CTA) is still an issue and may lead to substantial consequences. Given that electrocardiography (ECG)-gated CTA provides greater diagnostic safety, it may be assumed that interhospital referrals with a diagnosis of AAD based on non-ECG-gated pre-referral CTA carry an elevated risk of false-positive diagnosis., Patients and Methods: We reviewed a series of patients in whom a diagnosis of AAD based on non-ECG-gated pre-referral CTA was subsequently proven false by ECG-gated CTA. The artifacts that gave rise to the misdiagnosis, as well as the diagnostic pathways followed and the consequences of false-positive diagnosis were investigated., Results: In 5 patients, ECG-gated repeat CTA revealed artifacts in the pre-referral scans that had led to false-positive diagnosis and referral for emergent surgery. In the first case, the patient proceeded to surgery. In 4 subsequent cases, ECG-gated CTA was ordered because a false-positive diagnosis was suspected. We found that ECG-gated CTA rather than echocardiography provided sufficient information to rule out AAD in each of these cases. Comparison between pre-referral non-ECG-gated scans and ECG-gated repeat CTA demonstrated the wide range of artifacts that may give rise to a diagnosis of AAD., Conclusion: Patient condition permitting, the threshold to ECG-gated repeat CTA should be low when doubt arises with regard to a diagnosis of AAD based on non-ECG-gated CTA in interhospital referrals., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.