Prospective, Randomised Two Centre Trial of Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm With or Without Sac Embolisation

The benefit of aneurysm sac coil embolisation (ASCE) during endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains unclear. This prospective randomised two centre study (SCOPE 1: Sac COil embolisation for Prevention of Endoleak) compared the outcomes of standard EVAR in patient...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery 2021-02, Vol.61 (2), p.201-209
Hauptverfasser: Fabre, Dominique, Mougin, Justine, Mitilian, Delphine, Cochennec, Frederic, Garcia Alonso, Carlos, Becquemin, Jean-Pierre, Desgranges, Pascal, Allaire, Eric, Hamdi, Sarah, Brenot, Philippe, Bourkaib, Riyad, Haulon, Stephan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The benefit of aneurysm sac coil embolisation (ASCE) during endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains unclear. This prospective randomised two centre study (SCOPE 1: Sac COil embolisation for Prevention of Endoleak) compared the outcomes of standard EVAR in patients with AAA at high risk of type II endoleak (EL with EVAR with ASCE during the period 2014–2019. Patients at high risk of type II EL were randomised to standard EVAR (group A) or EVAR with coil ASCE (group B). The primary endpoint was the rate of all types of EL during follow up. Secondary endpoints included freedom from type II EL related re-interventions, and aneurysm sac diameter and volume variation at two year follow up. Adverse events included type II EL and re-interventions. CTA and Duplex ultrasound scans were scheduled at 30 days, six months, one year, and two years after surgery. Ninety-four patients were enrolled, 47 in each group. There were no intra-operative complications. At M1, 16/47 early type II EL occurred (34%) in group A vs. 2/47 (4.3%) in group B (p 
ISSN:1078-5884
1532-2165
DOI:10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.11.028