Outcomes of Unilateral Versus Bilateral Use of the Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis for Elective Endovascular Treatment of Aorto-iliac Aneurysms

Endovascular repair of bilateral common iliac artery aneurysms using intraoperative positioning system

Intraoperative positioning system (IOPS; Centerline Biomedical, Inc) is a novel technology that allows for real-time intravascular navigation of endovascular devices using an electromagnetic field. In this report, we describe the use of IOPS for effective treatment of bilateral common iliac artery aneurysms with endovascular aortoiliac repair using iliac branch endoprostheses. Our experience suggests that this technology has the potential to reduce radiation and contrast use in endovascular procedures, although its application is currently limited. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of bilateral internal iliac cannulations for iliac branch endoprosthesis placement using IOPS.

Image-based assessment of aortoiliac aneurysm anatomical characteristics in patients from the global iliac branch study

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular repair is the preferred treatment for aortoiliac aneurysm, with preservation of at least one internal iliac artery recommended. This study aimed to assess pre-endovascular repair anatomical characteristics of aortoiliac aneurysm in patients from the Global Iliac Branch Study (GIBS, NCT05607277) to enhance selection criteria for iliac branch devices (IBD) and improve long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Pre-treatment CT scans of 297 GIBS patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair were analyzed. Measurements included total iliac artery length, common iliac artery length, tortuosity index, common iliac artery splay angle, internal iliac artery stenosis, calcification score, and diameters in the device's landing zone. Statistical tests assessed differences in anatomical measurements and IBD-mediated internal iliac artery preservation.

RESULTS

Left total iliac artery length was shorter than right (6.7 mm, P = .0019); right common iliac artery less tortuous (P = .0145). Males exhibited greater tortuosity in the left total iliac artery (P = .0475) and larger diameter in left internal iliac artery's landing zone (P = .0453). Preservation was more common on right (158 unilateral, 34 bilateral) than left (105 unilateral, 34 bilateral). There were 192 right-sided and 139 left-sided IBDs, with 318 IBDs in males and 13 in females.

CONCLUSION

This study provides comprehensive pre-treatment iliac anatomy analysis in patients undergoing endovascular repair with IBDs, highlighting differences between sides and sexes. These findings could refine patient selection for IBD placement, potentially enhancing outcomes in aortoiliac aneurysm treatment. However, the limited number of females in the study underscores the need for further research to generalize findings across genders.

Outcomes of "Anterior Versus Posterior Divisional Branches of the Hypogastric Artery as Distal Landing Zone for Iliac Branch Devices": The International Multicentric R3OYAL Registry

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this multicentric registry was to assess the outcomes of "anteRior versus posteRior divisional bRanches Of the hYpogastric artery as distAl landing zone for iLiac branch devices (R3OYAL)."

METHODS

The main exposure of interest for the purpose of this study was the internal iliac artery (IIA) divisional branch (anterior vs posterior) that was used as distal landing zone. Early endpoints included technical success and adverse events. Late endpoints included survival, primary/secondary IIA patency, and IIA branch instability.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were included in the study, of which 50 received bilateral implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs). This resulted in a total of 221 incorporated IIAs included in the final analysis, of which 40 were anterior divisional branches and 181 were posterior divisional branches. Technical success was high in both groups (anterior division: 98% vs posterior division: 100%, P = .18). Occurrence of any adverse event was noted in 14% of patients in both groups (P = 1.0). The overall rate of freedom from the composite IBD branch instability did not show significant differences between patients receiving distal landing in the anterior or posterior division of the IIA at 3 years (79% vs 87%, log-rank test = .215). The 3-year estimates of IBD patency were significantly lower in patients who received distal landing in the anterior divisional branch than those who received distal landing in the posterior divisional branch (primary patency: 81% vs 96%, log-rank test = .009; secondary patency: 81% vs 97%, log-rank test < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the IIA as distal landing zone for IBD implantation shows comparable profiles in terms of immediate technical success, perioperative safety, and side-branch instability up to 3 years. However, IBD patency at 3 years was higher when the distal landing zone was achieved within the posterior divisional branch of the IIA.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The results from this large multicentric registry confirm that use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zone for implantation of iliac branch devices (IBD) shows comparable profiles of safety and feasibility, thereby allowing to extend the indications for endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Although mid-term rates of device durability and branch instability seem to be similar, the rates of primary and secondary IBD patency at three years was favored when the distal landing zone was achieved in the posterior divisional branch of the IIA.

Results of iliac branch devices for hypogastric salvage after previous aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this multicentric study was to assess the "REsults of iliac branch deviceS for hypogastriC salvage after previoUs aortic rEpair (RESCUE)."

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs) after previous open aortic repair (OAR) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) at seven centers were captured. The study cohort was divided into two groups according to the type of repair originally performed. Early outcomes included immediate technical success and perioperative adverse events. Late outcomes included survival, side branch (SB) primary patency, SB instability, and new onset buttock claudication.

RESULTS

A total of 94 patients (82 male) were included in the study, 10 of them received bilateral implantation of IBDs. This resulted in a total of 104 devices included in the final analysis. Indication for treatment were endoleak 1b or progressive iliac aneurysmal degeneration or distal para-anastomotic aortic aneurysms; 73 were implanted after previous EVAR and 31 after previous OAR. Technical success was 100% in both groups. The 3-year rate of freedom from SB instability was 90.1% after previous EVAR and 85.4% after previous OAR, respectively (P = .05). The 3-year estimates of SB primary patency were significantly lower in patients who had received OAR as compared with those that had received EVAR (89.8% vs 94.9%; P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment with IBDs following previous OAR or EVAR is safe and effective up to 3 years. Freedom from SB instability during follow-up was lower in patients who had previously undergone OAR than EVAR.

Effect of preservation of antegrade hypogastric flow on development of claudication following aortoiliac aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the rate of development of buttock claudication in patients undergoing aortoiliac aneurysm repair with and without exclusion of antegrade hypogastric arterial flow. In the absence of convincing data, questions remain regarding the best management of hypogastric arterial flow to prevent the theoretical risk of buttock claudication.

METHODS

The Veterans' Affairs Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) Cooperative Study prospectively collected information on buttock claudication. Trial participants were specifically prompted both pre- and postoperatively to report the development of claudication symptoms at several anatomic levels. Of note, trial investigators were specifically trained to occlude the trunk hypogastric arterial, preserving the anterior and posterior divisions. Bayesian survival models were created to evaluate time to development of left, right, or bilateral buttock claudication according to the presence/absence of antegrade hypogastric perfusion.

RESULTS

A total of 881 patients from the OVER trial with information regarding status of hypogastric flow were included in the analysis. Of these, 788 patients maintained bilateral antegrade hypogastric arterial perfusion, 63 had right hypogastric coverage/occlusion, and 27 had left hypogastric coverage/occlusion, whereas 3 patients had bilateral hypogastric coverage/occlusion. Just under 5% of all patients (n = 41) developed buttock claudication. After adjustment for smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, medications, study arm, preoperative activity level, body mass index, age, and diabetes, intervention-related changes to hypogastric perfusion had no effect on time to development of buttock claudication. A Maximum A Posteriori Kullback- Leibler misfit χ² was 14.45 with 24 degrees of freedom, resulting in a goodness of fit P-value of P = .94, indicative of a good fit.

CONCLUSIONS

OVER is the largest aneurysm treatment study to prospectively collect data related to the development of claudication as well as hypogastric preservation status. Despite this, we were unable to find evidence to support the assertion that preservation of antegrade hypogastric flow decreases the rate of development of buttock claudication symptoms. The low rate of development of buttock claudication overall and in the subgroups is striking.

Peri-Operative Management of Patients Undergoing Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair for Juxtarenal, Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Preventing, Recognizing and Treating Complications to Improve Clinical Outcomes

The advent and refinement of complex endovascular techniques in the last two decades has revolutionized the field of vascular surgery. This has allowed an effective minimally invasive treatment of extensive disease involving the pararenal and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) now represents a feasible technical solution to address these complex diseases, moving the proximal sealing zone above the renal-visceral vessels take-off and preserving their patency. The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review on the peri-operative management of patients undergoing F/BEVAR procedures for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA), pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (PRAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurism (TAAA). It will focus on how to prevent, diagnose, and manage the complications ensuing from these complex interventions, in order to improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, F/BEVAR remains a technically, physiologically, and mentally demanding procedure. Intraoperative adverse events often require prolonged or additional procedures and complications may significantly impact a patient's quality of life, health status, and overall cost of care. The presence of standardized preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative pathways of care, together with surgeons and teams with significant experience in aortic surgery, should be considered as crucial points to improve clinical outcomes. Aggressive prevention, prompt diagnosis and timely rescue of any major adverse events following the procedure remain paramount clinical needs.