The current endoleak classification system with some important modifications is adequate. Types I and II endoleak occur after 0 to 10% and 10% to 25% of EVARs, respectively. Many (30% to 100%) type II endoleaks will seal and have no detrimental effect, which never or rarely occurs with type I endoleaks. Not all endoleaks can be visualized with any technique, and increased pressure (endotension) can be transmitted through clot. Aneurysm pulsatility after EVAR correlates poorly with endoleaks and endotension. An enlarging aneurysm after EVAR mandates surgical or interventional treatment. These and other conclusions will help to resolve controversy and aid in the management of these vexing complications and should also point the way to future research in this field.

Perioperative paraplegia or paraparesis was significantly associated with blockage of the left subclavian artery without revascularization. The clinical significance of this source of collateral perfusion of the spinal cord had not been confirmed previously. Intracranial stroke was associated with lengthy manipulation of wires, catheters, and introducer sheaths within the aortic arch, reflected by a longer duration of the procedure.

No abstract

phology. One of the remaining concerns is uncertainty about the long-term effect of persistent blood flow within the aneurysm sac after endovascular grafting, an occurrence known as endoleak. 1 In fact, endoleak development constitutes one of the prime reasons to perform postoperative surveillance by regularly performed image studies, usually computed tomography (CT) scanning. [2][3][4] The main purpose of EAR is to prevent death from rupture of the aneurysm, and early identification of endoleaks is intended to help obtain this goal. Protocols for when and how to manage endoleaks have been suggested, despite conflicting opinions on the natural history of endoleaks. 5 Several investigators consider the presence of perigraft flow to be evidence of failed treatment because it may predict aneurysmal enlargement and eventual rupture. 6-8 A contrasting opinion was presented in a recent study in which no relation between early endoleaks and late rupture, conversion to open surgery, and death could be demonstrated. 9 From this latter report, it might be concluded that the observation of perigraft flow had little consequence for the ultimate fate of the patient.Clinical management of endoleak may differ between types of endoleak. A generally accepted classification dis-Although the durability of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) (EAR) is not definitively established, this treatment method is increasing in popularity among patients and doctors. Physicians from different vascular-oriented disciplines have engaged in workshops and training sessions to learn how to perform the technique in patients with suitable aneurysm mor-461 Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, risk factors, and consequences of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Methods: Data on 2463 patients were collected from 87 European centers and recorded in a central database. Preoperative data were compared for patients with collateral retrograde perfusion (type II) endoleak (group A), patients with devicerelated (type I and III) endoleaks (group B), and patients in whom no endoleak was detected (group C). Only endoleaks observed after the first postoperative month of follow-up were taken into consideration. Regression analysis was performed to investigate statistical relationships between the occurrence and type of endoleak and preoperative patient and morphologic characteristics, operative details, type of device, and experience of the operating team. In addition, postoperative changes in aneurysmal morphology, the need for secondary interventions, conversions to open repair, aneurysmal rupture, and mortality during follow-up were compared between these study groups. Results: Patients in group A had a higher prevalence of a patent inferior mesenteric artery compared with patients without endoleak. Patients in group B were treated more frequently than patients in group C by an operating team with experience of less than 30 procedures. The mean follow-up period was 15.4 months. Seco...

Although the initial results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms were promising, current evidence from controlled studies does not convincingly show a reduction in 30-day mortality relative to that achieved with open repair. methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 345 patients who had received a diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The outcome events analyzed were operative (30-day) mortality and two composite end points of operative mortality and severe complications and operative mortality and moderate or severe complications. results The operative mortality rate was 4.6 percent in the open-repair group (8 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 8.9 percent) and 1.2 percent in the endovascular-repair group (2 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 4.2 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 3.9 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 32.9). The combined rate of operative mortality and severe complications was 9.8 percent in the open-repair group (17 of 174 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 5.8 to 15.2 percent) and 4.7 percent in the endovascular-repair group (8 of 171 patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 9.0 percent), resulting in a risk ratio of 2.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 5.4). conclusions On the basis of the overall results of this trial, endovascular repair is preferable to open repair in patients who have an abdominal aortic aneurysm that is at least 5 cm in diameter. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether this advantage is sustained.

The midterm outcome of large aneurysms after EVAR was associated with increased rates of aneurysm-related death, unrelated death, and rupture. Reports of EVAR should stratify their outcomes according to the diameter of the aneurysm. Large aneurysms need a more rigorous post-EVAR surveillance schedule than do smaller aneurysms. In small aneurysms EVAR was associated with excellent outcome. This finding may justify reappraisal of currently accepted management strategies.

Severe infrarenal aortic neck angulation was clearly associated with proximal type I endoleak, while the relationship with stent-graft migration was not clear. Excluder, Zenith, and Talent stent-grafts perform well in patients with severe neck angulation, with only a few differences among devices.

Endoleak type II may not be harmless as it was more frequently associated with enlargement of the aneurysm and reinterventions. Large aneurysms and migration of the device were the main risk factors for rupture. The clinical implications of these findings may involve more frequent surveillance visits for patients with type II endoleak. Aneurysm expansion is a clear indication for reintervention. Patients with large aneurysms, 65 mm or larger, may also benefit from a more comprehensive surveillance schedule.