Objectives: Evaluating the success of endoluminal repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is frequently based on diameter measurements and determining the presence of endoleaks. The use of three-dimensional volumetric data and observation of morphologic changes in the aneurysm and device have been proposed to be more appropriate for postdeployment surveillance. The purpose of this study was to analyze the long-term volumetric and morphologic data of 161 patients who underwent endovascular AAA exclusion and to assess the utility of volume measurements for determining successful AAA repair.
Methods: Patients with spiral computed tomography scans obtained preoperatively, within the first postoperative month, at 6 months, and annually thereafter, were included in this analysis. Computerized interactive three-dimensional reconstruction of each AAA scan was performed. Total aneurysm sac volume was measured at each time interval (mean preoperative volume 169.0 +/- 78.5 mL), and the significance of volume changes was determined by mixed linear modeling, a form of repeated measures analysis, to account for longitudinal data clustered at the individual level. Sixty-two patients (38%) developed endoleaks at some time during follow-up-15 type I leaks, 45 type II leaks, and 2 type III leaks. The patients with type I and type III leaks were treated with cuffs, and the type II leaks were treated either with observation, side-branch embolization, or required open conversion.
Results: Aneurysm sac volume increased slightly at 1-month follow-up (+3.3%), and then decreased steadily to -12.9% at 5 years (P <.0001). This effect remained unchanged after controlling for the three device types used in our study population. Patients who did not exhibit an endoleak (n = 99) showed a significant decrease in aneurysm volume across the entire follow-up duration when compared with those who did exhibit an endoleak (n = 62) (P <.0001). The presence of a 10% or greater decrease in volume at 6 months demonstrated a sensitivity of 64%, a specificity of 95%, a positive predictive value of 95%, a negative predictive value of 62%, and an accuracy of 75% for predicting primary clinical success defined by successful deployment of the device; freedom from aneurysm- or procedure-related death; freedom from endoleak, rupture, migration, or device malfunction; or conversion to open repair.
Conclusions: Volumetric analysis may be used to predict successful endoluminal exclusion of AAAs. Volume regression appears to be device-independent and should be expected in most clinically successful cases. The presence of volume increases in the first 6 months is suspicious for an endoleak that is pressurizing the aneurysm sac and heralds the need for closer evaluation and possible intervention. A volume decrease of 10% or greater at 6 months and continuing regression over time is associated with successful endovascular repair.