Coexisting hypogastric aneurysms worsen the outcomes of endovascular treatment by the iliac branch devices within the pELVIS Registry

Dilated Internal Iliac Artery Confers a Higher Risk of Endoleak in Iliac Branch Devices in a Single Centre Retrospective Experience

OBJECTIVE

Iliac branch devices (IBDs) have shown good results but there is little evidence for the risk of internal iliac artery (IIA) endoleak, so there are no clear recommendations on the maximum diameter it should be. Based on limited evidence, it was hypothesised that an IIA of ≥ 11 mm in diameter presents an increased risk of type Ic endoleak.

METHODS

This was a single centre, retrospective case control study. Patients undergoing an IBD with the main trunk of the IIA as the target vessel, between 2015 and 2021, were identified. Two groups were created: those with a main trunk diameter of < 11 mm; and those with a diameter of ≥ 11 mm. Technical success, freedom from type Ic endoleak, and re-intervention rates were compared. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was performed to show a cutoff IIA diameter value for risk of type Ic endoleak. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess the risk of type Ic endoleak and the presence of calcification, stenosis, and landing zone length in the IIA.

RESULTS

There were 182 IBDs identified. The dilated IIA group (54 IBDs) had significantly lower technical success (91% vs. 98.4%; p = .002), lower freedom from type Ic endoleak (77% vs. 97.1% at 24 months; p = .001), and lower freedom from re-interventions (70% vs. 92.4% at 24 months; p = .002). The ROC curve showed that 10.5 mm was the cutoff diameter for type Ic endoleak. Moderate or severe calcification as well as landing zone length < 5 mm also correlated with type Ic endoleak.

CONCLUSION

IBDs have a statistically significantly higher rate of technical failure, lower freedom from type Ic endoleak, and lower freedom from re-intervention when the IIA is ≥ 11 mm in diameter.

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.

Type Ic Endoleak after LifeStream Balloon-Expandable Stent Graft and Zenith Iliac Branch Device Placement

Considering the recent advancements in endovascular management of aortoiliac aneurysms, the use of an iliac branch device (IBD) to preserve pelvic blood flow and reduce complications caused by embolization of the internal iliac artery (IIA) is recommended by various guidelines. Although the outcomes reported following IBD placement are mainly positive and durable, IBD-specific complications such as a type Ic endoleak and associated reintervention may occur. Moreover, only one IBD device and one type of balloon-expandable bridging stent graft for IIA are currently available on the domestic market. Here we present two cases of type Ic endoleak following IBD placement. In both cases, IIA diameter was slightly larger than the basic instructions for use. Notably, the initial procedures were considered successful; however, type Ic endoleaks were detected on 1-month follow-up imaging. This finding emphasizes the need for a precise preoperative evaluation, intraoperative manipulation, and postoperative follow-up.

Effect of iliac tortuosity on outcomes after iliac branch procedures

OBJECTIVE

To report a two-centers evaluation of the effects of iliac axis tortuosity on iliac branch device (IBD) results.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2021, all IBD procedures performed at two European centers were analyzed retrospectively. The preoperative pelvic tortuosity index (PTI), external tortuosity index (ETI), and double iliac sign (DIS) were assessed for each iliac axis submitted to IBD. The primary endpoints were technical success, early and mid-term IBD complications (occlusion, stenosis, endoleaks [ELs]) and reinterventions, and the association with the PTI, ETI, and DIS. The 30-day mortality, survival, freedom from complications and freedom from reinterventions (FFR) were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

During the study period, 224 patients had undergone 256 IBD procedures for 165 (64.5%) aortoiliac aneurysms, 44 (17.2%) isolated iliac aneurysms, 11 (4.3%) abdominal aortic aneurysms with a short iliac landing zone, and 36 (14.1%) type Ib ELs. IBD was planned with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for 158 (61.7%), fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair for 45 (7.6%), and isolated for 53 (20.7%) cases. Technical success and 30-day mortality were 99.2% (254 of 256) and 0.9% (2 of 224), respectively. A PTI >1.4, an ETI >1.7, and the DIS were tested to identify the risk factors for the endpoints. No ELs and 9 (3.5%) IBD occlusions, requiring five reinterventions (2%), had occurred within 30 days. No association with the PTI, ETI, or DIS was identified; IBD oversizing of ≥25% on the external iliac artery was independently related to occlusion (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-18.1; P = .045). The mean follow-up was 31 ± 27 months, with 11 IBD occlusions, 14 ELs, and 21 reinterventions. At 1, 3, and 5 years of follow-up survival, IBD patency, and FFR were 95%, 89%, and 80%; 93%, 91%, and 90%; and 93%, 89%, and 83%, respectively. The risk factors for overall complications (n = 34; 13.3%) and reinterventions (n = 26; 10.2%) were an ETI >1.7 (P = .037 and P = .019), a PTI >1.4 (P = .016 and P = .012), and a type Ib EL as the indication (P = .025 and P = .001), respectively. Cox regression confirmed PTI >1.4 as an independent predictor of overall complications and reinterventions (hazard ratio [HR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.4; P = .018; and HR, 3 95% CI, 1.3-6.8; P = .018, respectively) and ETI >1.7 as an independent risk factor for ELs (HR 6; 95% CI, 2.1-17.5; P = .001). The freedom from complications and FFR were significantly lower with a PTI >1.4 at 3 years (73% vs 92% [log-rank P = .01] and 77% vs 93% [log-rank P = .001], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We found IBDs to be safe and effective in the treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms. Early complications are uncommon and related to endograft oversizing rather than anatomic characteristics in the present study. Iliac tortuosity is a risk factor for overall complications and reinterventions, in particular for IBD-related ELs.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness and safety of unilateral versus bilateral iliac branch devices for aortoiliac and iliac artery aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Iliac branch devices (IBDs) have been utilized in the treatment of aortoiliac and isolated iliac artery aneurysms. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of IBDs.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted by identifying studies in the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases regarding the outcomes of IBDs in aortoiliac or isolated iliac artery aneurysms between May 2006 and December 2020. Individual studies were evaluated for the following major outcomes: technical success, 30-day mortality, primary patency, endoleak, reintervention, and rates of pelvic ischemia. Furthermore, sub-group meta-analyses were performed to compare the pelvic ischemic events in patients with bilateral IBDs, unilateral IBDs and bilateral internal iliac artery (IIA) embolization/coverage.

RESULTS

45 studies with a total of 2736 patients undergoing unilateral or bilateral IBDs met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate of IBD was 98.0% (CI: 97.3-98.7%). Following IBD treatment, the 30-day mortality rate was 0.4% (CI: 0.07-0.70%); 30-day patency was 98.4% (CI: 97.7-99.0%); buttock claudication developed in 1.84% (CI: 1.26-2.41%); endoleak occurred in 11.9% (CI: 9.2-14.7%) and re-intervention in 7.6% (CI: 5.65-9.58%). Furthermore, in the patients with bilateral iliac artery involvement the pooled estimate rates of buttock claudication were 0.7% in bilateral IBD group, 7.9% in unilateral IBD with contralateral IIA embolization patients and 33.8% in bilateral IIA embolization/coverage patients, which were statistically significant among the three groups. Sexual dysfunction was 5.0% in bilateral IIA occlusion group, which was significantly higher than that in IBD groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of IBDs in treatment of aortoiliac or isolated iliac artery aneurysms is associated with high technical success rates as well as low incidences of pelvic ischemia. The risk of postoperative buttock claudication can be further decreased with both IIA preservation if patients are anatomically suitable for bilateral IBDs.

A Multicenter Assessment of Anatomic Suitability for Iliac Branched Devices in Eastern Asian Patients With Unilateral and Bilateral Aortoiliac Aneurysms

Objective: This study aims to assess the suitability of four types of commercial iliac branch device systems to treat Eastern Asian abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients with bilateral or unilateral common iliac artery aneurysms (CIAAs).

Methods: Patients with a coexisting AAA and a unilateral or bilateral CIAAs who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) at two tertiary centers in China from 2015 to 2017 were reviewed. Morphology of lesions was measured and the anatomic suitability for Cook iliac branch device (IBD), Gore iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE), Lifetech iliac branch stent graft (IBSG), and Jotec IBD was evaluated according to the latest instructions for use.

Results: Seventy-six patients with AAA were enrolled, including 35 bilateral CIAAs, 41 unilateral CIAAs. A hundred and eleven lesions were investigated aggregately: 16.2, 28.8, 21.6, and 19.8% met the criteria for Cook IBD, Gore IBE, Lifetech IBSG, and Jotec IBD, respectively. A total of 34 (44.7%) patients could be treated for at least one lateral lesion. The diameter of the internal iliac artery (IIA) was the most common restriction for IBD application. Additionally, the IIA diameter of lesions in the bilateral group was significantly larger compared with the unilateral group (P < 0.001). Based on the anatomical characteristics alone, it is likely that IBDs will be more suitable for unilateral lesions than bilateral ones (P < 0.05). However, there was no difference between the suitability for patients with unilateral or bilateral CIAAs (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: Less than half of Eastern Asian patients with aortoiliac aneurysms were eligible for IBD application. This was primarily due to the IIA diameter failing to meet the criteria. And thus, the suitability of lesions in bilateral group was significantly lower than that in the unilateral group. Aiming to expand the indications and optimize the design of the iliac branch devices, IIA diameter and the anatomical characteristics of the bilateral lesions should be considered deliberately.

Bilateral Use of Iliac Branch Devices for Aortoiliac Aneurysms Is Safe and Feasible, and Procedural Volume Does Not Seem to Affect Technical or Clinical Effectiveness: Early and Midterm Results From the pELVIS International Multicentric Registry

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate early and follow-up outcomes following bilateral use of iliac branch devices (IBD) for aortoiliac endografting and assess the impact of center volume. We used data from the pELVIS international multicentric registry.

METHODS

For the purpose of this study, only those patients receiving concomitant bilateral IBD implantation were analyzed. To assess the impact that procedural volume of bilateral IBD implantation could have on early and follow-up outcomes, participating institutions were classified as Site(s) A if they had performed >10 and/or >20% concomitant bilateral IBD procedure, otherwise they were classified as Site(s) B. Endpoints of the analysis included early (ie, 30-day) mortality and morbidity, as well as all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality during follow-up. Additional endpoints that were evaluated included IBD-related reinterventions, IBD occlusion or stenosis requiring reintervention (ie, loss of primary patency), and IBD-related type I endoleak.

RESULTS

Overall, 96 patients received bilateral IBD implantation (out of 910 procedures collected in the whole pELVIS cohort), of whom 65 were treated at Site A (ie, Group A) and 31 were treated at Site(s) B (ie, Group B). In total, only 1 death occurred within 30 days from bilateral IBD implantation, and 9 patients experienced at least 1 major complication without any significant difference between subjects in Group A versus those in Group B (10.8% vs 6.5%, p=0.714). In the overall cohort, the 2-year freedom from IBD-related type I endoleaks and IBD primary patency were 96% and 92%, respectively; no significant differences were seen in those rates between Group A or Group B (95% vs 100%, p=0.335; 93% vs 88%, p=0.470). Freedom from any IBD-related reinterventions was 83% at 2 years, with similar rates between study groups (85% vs 83%, p=0.904).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the pELVIS registry, concomitant bilateral IBD implantation is a safe and feasible technique for management of aortoiliac aneurysms in patients with suitable anatomy. Despite increased technical complexity, effectiveness of the repair is satisfactory with low rates of IBD-related adverse events at mid-term follow-up. Procedural volume does not seem to affect technical or clinical outcomes after bilateral use of IBD, which remains a favorable treatment option in selected patients.

The Effect of Manufacturer's Instructions for Use Compliance on Cook ZBIS Iliac-Branched Endograft Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines indicate iliac-branched endografts (IBDs) as the ideal means to preserve pelvic perfusion during endovascular aortic repair. Because patient vascular anatomy represents the main limitation to extensive use of these devices, off-label application may be considered to expand the number of patients being treated. The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term outcomes obtained using the Cook ZBIS endograft in the treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms as per or outside manufacturer's instruction for use (IFU).

METHODS

Data from all patients who underwent IBD implant in a single center were reviewed. Study population was divided into two subgroups: Group I treated as per manufacturer's IFU and group II treated outside IFU.

RESULTS

During the study period (2008-2018), 119 patients were treated with 130 IBDs. Eighty-six patients were treated as per IFU (group I) and 44 outside IFU (group II). Overall technical success was 99.2%. Mean follow-up was of 63.5 ± 38.3 months for group I and 58.3 ± 35.9 months for group II (P = 0.45). Freedom from reintervention at ten years was 79.8% in group I and 69.6% in group II (P = 0.29). Freedom from IBD-related reintervention rate was 98.7% and 95.3% in groups I and II, respectively (P = 0.240). Iliac-branched module thrombosis occurred significantly more in patients treated outside IFU with 4 cases in group I (4.7%) and 10 cases in group II (22.7%), (P = 0.005). Cox regression analysis identified hypogastric artery aneurysm as the only independent predictor for both IBD thrombosis and hypogastric artery occlusion during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

When used by an experienced team, Cook IBDs are safe and effective in the treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms both inside and outside IFU. Anyway a lower target hypogastric patency rate should be expected when treating patients with hypogastric aneurysms.

Aneurysms and dissections - What is new in the literature of 2019/2020 - a European Society of Vascular Medicine annual review

More than 6,000 publications were found in PubMed concerning aneurysms and dissections, including those Epub ahead of print in 2019, printed in 2020. Among those publications 327 were selected and considered of particular interest.

Comparison of Two Iliac Branch Devices and Their Midterm Performance in Maintaining Blood Flow to the Internal Iliac Artery

Purpose: To compare and contrast the midterm outcomes of the E-liac and Zenith (ZBIS) iliac branch devices (IBDs) for the preservation of the internal iliac artery (IIA) in aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation. Materials and Methods: Between January 2014 and December 2018, 84 consecutive patients (median age 74 years; 76 men) were electively treated with the E-liac (n=44) or ZBIS (n=40) IBDs and were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the technical success, patency, need for reintervention, and mortality associated with these devices. Results: Technical success was achieved in 95 of 99 implantations (95.9%) without any statistically significant difference between the groups (93.7% vs 98.0%, p=0.114). During the first 30 days, 3 occlusions in the ZBIS group and 1 in the E-liac group were identified. There was 1 perioperative death in the ZBIS group. The median follow-up was 37 months for the ZBIS group and 28 months for the E-liac group (p=0.657). Six patients from the ZBIS group and 7 from the E-liac group were lost to follow-up. Among the remaining, there were 2 further deaths recorded, 1 in each group. Four further reinterventions in the E-liac group and 2 in the ZBIS group were performed during follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from reintervention were 87.2% (95% CI 82.6% to 90.2%) for the ZBIS group and at 86.0% (95% CI 83.7% to 89.1%) for the E-liac group (p=0.563); the freedom from occlusion estimates were 89.7% (95% CI 85.8% to 94.5%) and 95.3% (95% CI 92% to 98.7%; p=0.317), respectively. Conclusion: The E-liac and the ZBIS IBDs showed equally high technical success, midterm patency, and low reintervention rates.

Outcomes after Standalone Use of Gore Excluder Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis for Endovascular Repair of Isolated Iliac Artery Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to describe outcomes of stand-alone use (i.e., without concomitant implantation of an aortic stent graft) of the Gore Excluder iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) for elective endovascular repair of isolated iliac artery aneurysms.

METHODS

We evaluated all consecutive patients electively treated for isolated iliac artery aneurysms using standalone Gore Excluder IBE (January 2014-December 2018). Early (i.e., 30-day) endpoints were technical success, mortality, major adverse events (MAEs), and major access-site complications. Late endpoints were survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), internal iliac artery (IIA) primary patency, IIA branch instability, graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), secondary interventions, endoleaks (ELs), aneurysm sac behavior, and new-onset buttock claudication (BC).

RESULTS

A total of 11 consecutive patients (10 men; median age 75 years) were included. The technical success rate was 100%. At 30 days, mortality, MAEs, and major access-site complications were all 0%. Survival and freedom from ARM were 91% and 100%, respectively; only one nonaortic related death was recorded during follow-up. At a median follow-up of 14 months, IIA primary patency, IIA branch instability, and GRAEs were 100%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. No instances of graft migration ≥10 mm were detected. No graft-related secondary interventions were recorded, and 2 patients required a procedure-related secondary intervention 3 months after the index procedure (1 common femoral artery endarterectomy and 1 external iliac artery stenting). Although new-onset type 1 or type 3 ELs were never noted, one patient developed a new-onset type 2 EL. Aneurysm sac regression ≥5 mm was noted in 6 patients (55%), whereas in the remaining ones, the sac size was stable. No instances of new-onset BC were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of standalone Gore Excluder IBE for elective endovascular repair of isolated iliac artery aneurysms is a safe, feasible, and effective treatment option. These results may support use of the technique as an effective means of endovascular reconstruction in patients with suitable anatomy.

Outcomes of the Gore Excluder Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis Using Division Branches of the Internal Iliac Artery as Distal Landing Zones

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of the Gore Excluder Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) using division branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zones. Materials and Methods: Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018, 74 patients (mean age 74±7 years; 72 men) treated for aortoiliac or common iliac artery aneurysms had an IBE deployed with distal landing of the side branch within the main trunk (n=60) of the internal iliac artery (IIA) vs within a division branch (n=25). Thirteen (17%) patients received bilateral IBE implantations for a total of 85 vessels evaluated. Early endpoints were technical success, 30-day mortality, 30-day major adverse events (MAEs), and 30-day major access complications. Late endpoints were survival, primary and secondary IIA patency, freedom from IIA branch instability, freedom from new-onset buttock claudication, and aneurysm sac diameter changes. Time-dependent outcomes were reported as Kaplan-Meier curves with differences assessed using the log-rank test. Estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The overall technical success rate was 97%, with 1 technical failure per group (p=0.43). Two patients, one from each group, died within 30 days (p=0.43). No significant differences were seen in the rates of 30-day MAEs (7% vs 17%, p=0.35) or major access complications (9% vs 11%, p>0.99) for patients receiving distal landing in the main trunk vs a division branch, respectively. The mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 19±12 months. The overall 1-year survival rate was 94% (95% CI 74% to 99%). The primary and secondary patency rates at 1 year were 98% (95% CI 88% to 99%) vs 95% (95% CI 72% to 99%, p=0.72) and 98% (95% CI 88% to 99%) vs 100% (p=0.41) for the main trunk vs division branch groups, respectively. Freedom from IIA branch instability estimates were also similar at 1-year follow-up [93% (95% CI 82% to 97%) vs 90% (95% CI 66% to 97%), p=0.29], as were the freedom from new-onset buttock claudication estimates [98% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and 94% (95% CI 67% to 99%), respectively; p=0.62]. Mean sac diameter change was 5.4±5.3 mm, not significantly different between the groups (p=0.85). Conclusion: Use of the posterior or anterior division of the IIA as a distal landing zone for the Gore Excluder IBE was safe and efficacious in the midterm. This technique may permit extending indications for endovascular repair of aortoiliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Long-term assessment is needed to affirm the efficacy of this technique.