Key result
Translumbar embolization had a higher clinical success rate than transarterial embolization for treating type II endoleak (81% vs 62.5%; P=0.024) and fewer recurrent endoleaks.
Why the study?
Does translumbar embolization improve clinical success and reduce complications compared to transarterial embolization in patients with type II endoleak after EVAR?
Systematic Review (n=21,744)
Does translumbar embolization improve clinical success and reduce complications compared to transarterial embolization in patients with type II endoleak after EVAR?
Absolute Event Rate: 81% vs 62.5%
p-value: p=0.024
Aortic aneurysm rupture after EVAR secondary to isolated type II endoleak is rare (<1%), and translumbar embolization offers higher success and lower complication rates compared to transarterial embolization.
Authors
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May warrant preferring translumbar over transarterial embolization for type II endoleak; extends systematic evidence of higher success and fewer recurrences.
Sidloff et al. (2013) conducted a systematic review in Type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) (n=21,744). Translumbar embolization vs. Transarterial embolization was evaluated on Clinical success rate (p=0.024). Translumbar embolization had a higher clinical success rate than transarterial embolization for treating type II endoleak (81% vs 62.5%; P=0.024) and fewer recurrent endoleaks.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: