Routine Inferior Mesenteric Artery Embolisation is Unnecessary Before Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE

A type II endoleak is the most common complication during surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), and a patent inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) is a known risk factor for an endoleak. The effect of routine IMA embolisation prior to EVAR on overall outcome is unknown. The aim of the study was to compare two strategies: routine attempted IMA embolisation prior to EVAR (strategy in centre A) and leaving the IMA untouched (strategy in centre B).

METHODS

Patients were treated with EVAR in two centres during the period 2005 - 2015, and the data were reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoints were re-intervention rate due to type II endoleaks and the late IMA embolisation rate. Secondary endpoints included EVAR related re-intervention, sac enlargement, aneurysm rupture, and open conversion rates.

RESULTS

Strategy A was used to treat 395 patients. The IMA was patent in 268 (67.8%) patients, and embolisation was performed in 164 (41.5%). The corresponding figures for strategy B were 337 patients with 279 (82.8%) patent IMAs, two (0.6%) of which were embolised. The mean duration of follow up was 70 months for strategy A and 68.2 months for strategy B. The re-intervention rates due to a type II endoleak were 12.9% and 10.4%, respectively (p = .29), with no significant difference in the rate of re-interventions to occlude a patent IMA (2.0% and 4.7%, respectively; p = .039). The EVAR related re-intervention rate was similar, regardless of strategy (24.1% and 24.6%, respectively; p = .93). Significant sac enlargement was seen in 20.3% of cases treated with strategy A and in 19.6% treated with strategy B (p = .82). The rupture and conversion rates were 2.5% and 2.1% (p = .69) and 1.0% and 1.5% (p = .40), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The strategy of routinely embolising the IMA does not seem to yield any significant clinical benefit and should therefore be abandoned.