Five-year follow-up of randomized clinical trial for pre-emptive inferior mesenteric artery embolization during endovascular aneurysm repair.

INTRODUCTION: Type II endoleak (T2EL) is the most common type of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and a common indication for reintervention due to late sac enlargement. Although pre-emptive embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) has been proposed to prevent this, no studies have prospectively demonstrated its efficacy. This study aimed to prove the validity of IMA embolization during EVAR in selective cases by analyzing the mid-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial (RCT).

METHODS: This single-center, parallel-group, non-blinded RCT included participants at high risk of T2EL, characterized by a patent IMA in conjunction with one or more following risk factors: a patent IMA ≥3 mm in diameter, lumbar arteries ≥2 mm in diameter, or an aortoiliac-type aneurysm. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups in a 1:1 ratio: one undergoing EVAR with IMA embolization and the other without. The primary endpoint was T2EL occurrence. The secondary endpoints included aneurysm sac changes and reintervention. In addition to RCT participants, outcomes of patients with low-risk of T2EL were also analyzed.

RESULTS: The embolization and non-embolization groups each contained 53 patients. Five-year follow-up after the last patient enrolment revealed that T2ELs occurred in 28.3% and 54.7% of patients in the IMA embolization and non-embolization groups, respectively (P=.006). Both freedom from T2EL-related sac enlargement ≥5 mm and cumulative incidence of sac shrinkage ≥5 mm were significantly higher in the IMA embolization group than in the non-embolization group (95.5% vs. 73.6% at 5 years; P=.021, 54.2% vs. 33.6% at 5 years; P=.039). The freedom from T2EL-related sac enlargement ≥10 mm, an alternative indicator for T2EL-related reintervention, showed similar results (100% vs. 90.4% at 5 years; P=.019). Outcomes in the low-risk group were preferable than those in the non-embolization group and comparable to those in the IMA embolization group.

CONCLUSION: A lower threshold for pre-emptive IMA embolization when implementing EVAR would be more appropriate if limited to patients at high risk of T2ELs.