Up-and-Over Technique for Implantation of Iliac Branch Devices After Prior Aortic Endograft Repair

Impact of Combining Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis and Physician-Modified Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair for Complex Abdominal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms with Concomitant Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Treatment of iliac artery aneurysms (IAA) with the Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) during endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) has been well-documented as effective. However, limited data exists evaluating the safety and efficacy of treating complex abdominal (cAAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) with associated IAA with combined physician-modified fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) and IBE. Moreover, limited studies exist assessing the impact of adding IBE on the outcomes following PM-FBEVAR. Therefore, we compared the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR with and without IBE for the treatment of cAAA and TAAA.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR between September 2015 and February 2021 was conducted. Patients with both unilateral and bilateral IBE implantation were included. Infected aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms were excluded. Demographics, technical success, and operative factors were analyzed. Primary outcomes were incidence of pelvic ischemia including buttock and thigh claudication, bowel and spinal cord ischemia, patency of internal and external limbs of IBE, and target vessel instability. Secondary outcomes included technical success, 30-day major adverse events (MAE), 30-day and all-cause mortality, and endoleaks.

RESULTS

Among 183 patients identified who underwent PM-FBEVAR, 22 patients underwent PM-FBEVAR and IBE with 3 patients treated with bilateral IBEs. There was no pelvic ischemia in the PM-FBEVAR and IBE group. Technical success, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time were comparable between the two groups. Contrast usage was higher in the PM-FBEVAR and IBE group (p=0.01). Thirty-day MAE and mortality were not statistically different between the two groups. At mean follow-up of 23 months, all-cause mortality was similar for both groups (21% vs 27%; p=0.47). Patency of internal iliac artery limb and external iliac artery limb of the IBE were 96% (24 of 25) and 100%, respectively, during mean follow-up of 23 months. The patient with occlusion of internal iliac limb was asymptomatic and received no re-intervention.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of cAAA and TAAA associated with IAA using combined PM-FBEVAR and IBE is feasible with high efficacy and safety, and without adverse effect on outcomes. Long-term follow-up is planned to assess durability of repair with PM-FBEVAR and IBE.

Single Access and X-Over Reversed Iliac Extension Technique in a PAD Patient Needing Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

To describe the X-over reversed iliac extension technique in a patient with severe peripheral arterial disease (PAD) scheduled for inner branched endovascular aortic repair (iBEVAR).

TECHNIQUE

A multimorbid 62-year-old male patient was planned for iBEVAR due to a 58 mm suprarenal aortic aneurysm. The patient had a previous right femoropopliteal bypass and stenting of the left iliac axis. At admission, he presented with recent onset severe left limb claudication, which was attributed to left iliac stent occlusion. To avoid the postoperative compression of the right common femoral artery (CFA) and preserve the patency of the bypass, a single left CFA access, followed by left iliac artery recanalization, was decided. The right iliac axis was catheterized with a Lunderquist wire using X-over access from the left CFA. An iliac extension (ZISL, 24-59, Cook Medical, Bloomington, USA) was reversed and resheathed on back-table and implanted in the right common iliac artery using the X-over technique. The left CFA access was used to complete the remaining steps of the procedure. The predischarge computed tomography angiography confirmed bilateral iliac artery and femoropopliteal bypass patency.

CONCLUSION

The X-over reversed iliac extension technique may be applied in selected PAD patients, when undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair.

CLINICAL IMPACT

As the number of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is expected to increase the upcoming decades, out of the box solutions may be needed to assist complex endovascular aortic management. The X over technique, which consist of the contralateral advancement of an on-table reversed iliac limb, was successfully applied in a patient with severe PAD and numerous previous peripheral interventions, who was managed with branched endovascular aortic repair . The X Over technique may provide an additional alternative in well-selected patients with demanding vascular access undergoing complex endovascular aortic procedures.

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.

Technical Feasibility and Safety of a Snare-Less, EVAR-First Technique for Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of a snare-less, endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR)-first technique (SET) for iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) placement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who received IBEs between July 2018 and March 2022. Patients were divided into 2 categories based on method of IBE deployment: SET or Standard. Primary endpoints were technical success, major adverse events, mortality, reintervention, internal iliac artery (IIA) patency, and freedom from IIA branch instability. Technical success was defined by successful deployment of both the EVAR and the IBE with maintained patency of the IIA and no stent graft migration.

RESULTS

There were 20 patients (90% male, median age 72 [65.4-74.5] years) who underwent IBE placement. Among these, 5 (33.3%) underwent SET to treat 5 common iliac artery (CIA)/IIA aneurysms, while the remaining 15 (66.7%) underwent standard IBE deployment with through-and-through femoral access (n=13) or trans-brachial access (n=2) to treat 19 CIA/IIA aneurysms. Overall median renal to iliac bifurcation length was 169 (152-177) mm, with 9 patients falling short of the minimum of 165 mm for on-label IBE placement. Median contrast used was 148 (120-201) mL, fluoroscopy time 42.8 (35.0-49.8) minutes, estimated blood loss 200 (100-275) mL, and procedure time 192 (167-246) minutes, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. At 30 days, there were no mortalities or major adverse events in either group; there were 100% IIA patency, no IIA instability, and no reinterventions in both groups. Median follow-up in the SET group was 5.7 (5.5-6.2) months, with 1 death at 6 months and 1 type 1B endoleak at 6 months requiring reintervention. Median follow-up for the Standard group was 1.6 (0.8-2.1) years with 2 non-aneurysm-related deaths and no reinterventions at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

SET for IBE is a safe and effective approach that decreases technical complexity and mitigates anatomic barriers to IBE placement.

CLINICAL IMPACT

SET for IBE is a safe and effective approach to IBE placement that decreases technical complexity. A critical component to this technique is a large bore sheath with a stiff steerable tip. Importantly, this approach also mitigates anatomic barriers to IBE placement, expanding applicability of IBE technology to patients who may be otherwise ineligible.

Use of Secondary Iliac Branch Devices after Previous Endovascular Abdominal and Thoraco-Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and effectiveness of iliac branch devices (IBDs), as secondary procedure, for the treatment of type Ib endoleak or evolution of iliac artery disease after prior endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for thoraco-abdominal (TAAAs) or abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

METHODS

A multicentre observational study of three European centres. The study included 75 patients (age 71 ± 9 years, 96% men) with previous EVAR (n = 64, 85%) or fenestrated or branched (FB) EVAR (n = 11, 15%). Overall, 88 IBDs were implanted to treat aneurysmal iliac artery evolution in 40 (53%) and type Ib endoleak in 35 (47%) cases, respectively. Thirteen (17%) patients received bilateral IBDs. Internal iliac artery (IIA) catheterisation was done through a transaxillary access (n = 82, 93%) or up and over (n = 6, 7%) technique. The primary endpoint was technical success. Secondary endpoints were 30 day major adverse event, early and long term freedom from re-intervention and target vessel instability.

RESULTS

All procedures were technically successful (100%). During hospitalisation, there were four (5%) major adverse events and three (4%) early re-interventions, but no death, stroke, or damage to previous endografts. The median follow up was 47 (interquartile range 42) months, and the five year survival rate was 78 ± 6% with no aortic related death. Cox's regression analysis showed pre-operative renal function impairment (hazard ratio [HR] 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 10.1; p = .033), and primary TAAA repair (HR 6.1; 95% CI 1.6-22.3; p = .006) as independent factors for long term mortality. Freedom from re-interventions was 85 ± 4% at five years with 11 (12%) cases (five endoleaks, four IBD thromboses, two stenoses). IIA instability was reported in three (3%) limbs and freedom from IIA instability was 95 ± 3% after 60 months.

CONCLUSION

Secondary IBD after EVAR is a safe and effective procedure with high technical success and low complication rates. The technique of choice to revascularise the IIA seems not to affect early and follow up results. Long term durability of IBD repair is acceptable with low rates of IIA re-intervention.

Internal iliac artery preservation during endovascular aortic repair using in situ laser fenestration

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the technical and short-term clinical outcomes of internal iliac artery (IIA) reconstruction during endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with in situ laser-assisted fenestration in cases of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in which the iliac artery is unfit for an internal branched device (IBD).

METHODS

In the present single-institution retrospective study, we analyzed patients with AAAs who had undergone EVAR with in situ laser-assisted fenestration for IIA reconstruction between January 2018 and April 2021. The study included patients with iliac artery anatomy unfit for the use of commercial IBDs. The primary safety end point was freedom from major adverse events and unplanned reinterventions within 30 days. The primary efficacy end point was freedom from IIA restenosis, reintervention, and symptoms due to pelvic ischemia at 1 year after the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients requiring IIA reconstruction but with anatomy unfit for IBD placement were treated with in situ laser-assisted fenestration during EVAR for aortoiliac aneurysms during the study period. The mean age of our patients was 72 years, and 90% were men. The technical success rate was 100%. No patient had died within 30 days after the procedure. A suspicious IIA perforation had occurred in one patient, which was treated with an additional covered stent, for a primary safety end point of 95.0%. After a mean follow-up of 11 months, all except for one of the reconstructed IIAs were patent. Three patients reported symptoms of buttock claudication on the IIA occluded side at their 3-month follow-up after the procedure. However, these symptoms had subsided in two of these patients at 6 months. Type II endoleaks without sac expansion had occurred in two patients owing to retrograde blood flow from the inferior mesenteric artery and lumbar artery. Both patients were kept under close surveillance. The rate of freedom from major adverse events and unplanned reinterventions within 30 days (primary efficacy end point) was 86.3% at 1 year after procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

In situ laser-assisted fenestration was found to be a safe and effective alternative method for IIA reconstruction during EVAR for aortoiliac aneurysms in patients with anatomy unfit for IBD.

Use of real-world data and clinical registries to identify new uses of existing vascular endografts: combined use of GORE EXCLUDER Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis and GORE VIABAHN VBX Balloon Expandable Endoprosthesis

Objective

To assess the feasibility of collecting, examining and reporting observational, real-world evidence regarding the novel use of the GORE EXCLUDER Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) in conjunction with the GORE VIABAHN VBX Balloon Expandable Endoprosthesis (IBE+VBX stent graft).

Design

Multicentre retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Four real-world data sources were used: a national quality improvement registry, a statewide clinical research network, a regional quaternary health system and two tertiary academic medical centres.

Participants

In total, 30 patients with 37 IBE+VBX stent graft were identified. Of those, the mean age was 72±10.2 years and 90% were male. The cohort was 77% white, 10% black, 3% Hispanic and 10% other.

Main outcome measures

Outcome measures included: proportion of percutaneous vs open surgical access, intensive care admission, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), total LOS, postoperative complications, discharge disposition and 30-day mortality.

Results

The majority (89%) of cases were performed percutaneously, 5% required surgical exposure following failed percutaneous access and 6% required open surgical exposure outright. Nearly half (43%) required intensive care admission with a median ICU LOS of 1 day (range: 1–2). Median total LOS was 1 day (IQR: 1–2). There were zero postoperative myocardial infarctions, zero reported leg embolisations and no reported reinterventions. Access site complications were described in 1 of 28 patients, manifesting as a haematoma or pseudoaneurysm. Ultimately, 97% were discharged to home and one patient was discharged to a nursing home or rehabilitation facility. There were no 30-day perioperative deaths.

Conclusions

This project demonstrates the feasibility of identifying and integrating real-world evidence, as it pertains to an unapproved combination of endovascular devices (IBE+VBX stent graft), for short-term outcomes analysis. This new paradigm of evidence has potential to be used for device monitoring, submission to regulatory agencies, or consideration in indication expansions and approvals with further efforts to systematise data collection and transmission mechanisms.

Iliac branch device to treat type IB endoleak with a brachial access or an "up-and-over" transfemoral technique

PURPOSE

This study aimed to review the results of secondary IBD (iliac branch device) implantation in patients with type IB endoleak after prior fenestrated and/or branched or infrarenal endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR or EVAR), using either brachial access or an "up-and-over" transfemoral technique.

METHODS

A retrospective single centre analysis was conducted between Jan 2016 and Oct 2021 including consecutive patients that underwent IBD to correct a type IB endoleak after prior EVAR or F/B-EVAR. Groups were defined by arterial access which was either brachial (group 1) or transfemoral (group 2). All IBD implanted were manufactured by Cook Medical (INC, Bloomington, IN, USA). Demographics, anatomical features, technical success, and 30-day major adverse events (MAE) were recorded according to the current SVS standards. Survival curves according to Kaplan-Meier were calculated. Branch instability was a composite endpoint of any IIA branch-related complication or reintervention indicated to treat endoleak, kink, disconnection, stenosis, occlusion or rupture.

RESULTS

Overall, 28 patients (93% male, median age 74 years) receiving 32 IBDs were included, with 14 patients in each group. Prior endovascular aortic repairs were 23 EVAR and 5 F/B-EVAR, with time from initial repair being 58 months [48, 70]. Median pre-IBD maximal aneurysm diameter was 63.5 mm [59.0, 78.0]. Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both groups except for pulmonary status. All procedures were performed in a hybrid operative room. Median total operating time, fluoroscopy time and dose area product were 120 min [86, 167], 23 min [15, 32] and 54 Gy.cm2 [40, 62], respectively. Total operating time was shorter in group 2 (p=0.006). Technical success rate was 100% and no early death reported. One 30-day MAE occurred including a medically treated colonic ischemia (group 2). Aortic-related secondary interventions were required in 7 patients (5 in group 1 and 2 in group 2) including 3 surgical explantations. Median follow-up was 31 months [24, 42] and 6 months [3, 10] in group 1 and 2, respectively. In group 1, 2-year freedom from aortic-related secondary intervention and IIA branch instability were 84.6% [67.1-100] and 92.3% [78.9-100], respectively. In group 2, 6-month freedom from aortic-related secondary intervention and IIA branch instability were 87.5% [67.3-100] and 91.7% [77.3-100], respectively.

CONCLUSION

The secondary implantation of IBD to correct distal type I endoleak of previous aortic stent-graft is safe with a high technical success rate. The "up-and-over" technique could be considered as an alternative to the brachial access in patients with suitable anatomy.

Up-and-over access is not an optimal pathway for percutaneous catheter-directed thrombolysis in acute iliofemoral popliteal venous thrombosis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the feasibility and results of up-and-over access (UOA) for catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in acute iliofemoral popliteal venous thrombosis (IFPVT).

METHODS

From June 2020 to June 2021, a total of 26 patients (26 lower limbs) undergoing CDT for IFPVT were included. According to the vascular access, the patients were divided into UOA group (n = 11, 10 left limbs and 1 right limb) and ipsilateral popliteal vein (ILPV) (n = 15, 15 left limbs) access group. The differences in preoperative characteristics and technical details between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Patients in UOA group were older than those in ILPV access group (67.64 ± 4.11 years VS. 52.73 ± 15.63 years, p = .003). The BMI of UOA group was significantly higher than that of ILPV access group (26.03 ± 1.62 kg/m² VS 24.71 ± 1.46 kg/m², p = .039). There were significantly more patients with simultaneous three comorbidities in UOA group than in ILPV access group (45.5% vs. 0, p = .043). Compared with ILPV access group, the duration of operation and fluoroscopy of UOA group were significantly longer (20.64 ± 3.41 min vs. 10.20 ± 1.42 min, p < .001; 18.18 ± 2.99 min vs. 6.13 ± 0.92 min, p < .001), but the technical success rate was significantly lower (54.5% vs. 100%, p = .007). In UOA group, the operation-related complications occurred, including catheter straying into lateral sacral vein (9.1%), retroperitoneal hematoma (9.1%), and thrombus shedding into filter (9.1%).

CONCLUSION

The UOA may be attempted in patients who are unable to be prone, but this access is not an optimal pathway for CDT.

Early Results and Technical Tips of Combining Iliac Branch Endoprostheses with Fenestrated Aortic Stent Grafts during Endovascular Repair of Complex Abdominal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms

INTRODUCTION

Concomitant iliac artery aneurysms can pose challenges during repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. In fenestrated aortic aneurysm repairs (FEVAR), preservation of internal iliac perfusion is important to minimize risk of spinal cord ischemia. Currently, most commonly used fenestrated stent grafts and the only approved iliac branch devices are manufactured by different companies in the United States. We report our experience with combining Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) (W.L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ) and fenestrated stent grafts, using the Zenith platform (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN).

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent FEVAR at a single institution from September, 2015 to June, 2020 was performed. Patients were deemed high-risk for open repair. Fenestrated aortic components implanted were either physician-modified or custom manufactured. Cases in which IBEs were deployed during FEVAR were specifically reviewed. Anatomic details were obtained from preoperative CT scans. Postoperative outcomes such as mortality, technical success, major adverse events (MAE), limb patency, limb-related endoleaks and re-intervention rates were assessed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 171 patients underwent FEVAR at our institution. Among those, 15 patients had unilateral IBE implantation during FEVAR, while one received bilateral IBE implantation. Fourteen cases involved physician-modified fenestrated endograft (PMEG), and Zenith Fenestrated (ZFEN) (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in combination with Excluder bifurcated main body and IBE (W.L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ). Mean operative, and fluoroscopy times were 340.2 minutes, and 65.4 minutes respectively. A total of 67 viscerorenal target vessels (mean=3.9, range=_3-5) and 15 internal iliac arteries were incorporated, with a mean of 160 cc contrast used. Completion angiograms were free of type 1 and type 3 endoleaks. Technical success was 100%. There was no perioperative mortality. One patient developed spinal cord ischemia post-operative day two with neurological recovery. At mean follow-up of 430 days, overall survival was 100% with no aneurysm-related mortalities. Limb patency remained 100%. There were no type 3 endoleaks while one patient had a type 1B endoleak that is currently being monitored. There was one re-intervention for type 1C renal branch graft endoleak.

CONCLUSION

Combining IBE with FEVAR allows internal iliac preservation during endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms, with encouraging early results.

Treatment of Complete Displacement of the Bilateral Legs into an Aortic Aneurysm Using an Iliac Branch Device

PURPOSE

Migration is a major cause of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In patients with common iliac artery (CIA) dilation due to proximal migration of the iliac limb, internal iliac blood flow can be preserved by implanting an iliac branch device (IBD).

CASE REPORT

In this report, we discuss the case of a patient in whom the bilateral limbs were completely displaced into the aortic aneurysm due to proximal migration of the iliac limb after EVAR. By taking advantage of the characteristics of this migration, we formed a pull-through wire through the native terminal aorta without passing through the flow divider of the stent graft, and the IBD was deployed safely.

CONCLUSION

The present case indicates that the preservation of at least 1 internal iliac artery is possible in patients with CIA dilation due to proximal migration of the iliac limb. However, the unique features of each case must be considered to determine the appropriate approach.

Are All Wires Created the Same? A Quality Assurance Study of the Stiffness of Wires Typically Employed During Endovascular Surgery Using Tension Dynamometry

Objective

There have only been a few studies on the stiffness and load bearing characteristics of guidewires used to deliver devices during endovascular procedures, particularly endovascular aneurysm repair. The aim of this study was to compare the load bearing characteristics of typical stiff and floppy wires, including in the context of consistency for each wire type.

Methods

Two sets of stiff guidewires (Lunderquist Extra-Stiff and Amplatz Super Stiff [0.035” × 260 cm]), were compared with a floppy hydrophilic guidewire (Radifocus Stiff M [0.035” × 260 cm]). Radial stiffness was defined as the force (newtons [N]) needed to deform the wires on an electromechanical dynamometer. Tests were repeated with three runs on three sets of the same wire to check for consistency. Data were logged on proprietary dynamometric software and peak load values assessed per wire. Peak deformation forces (PDFs) from straight configuration to midwire deformation at 15 mm was translated into Microsoft Excel for statistical analysis in Minitab 19 for Windows.

Results

There was good agreement within each wire set, with no difference in PDFs from runs for each wire (p > .10). Mean ± standard deviation PDFs were 7.83 ± 0.23 N for the Lunderquist, 9.87 ± 0.92 N for the Amplatz, and 7.84 ± 0.52 N for the Radifocus wires. The Amplatz wire exhibited the greatest resistance to deformation vs. both the Lunderquist and Radifocus wires (p < .001, one way analysis of variance). Both Amplatz and Radifocus wires had non-linear deformation characteristics.

Conclusion

This study confirmed that the represented hydrophilic wire is more deformable than the stiff wires. The Amplatz wire has complex construction features that yielded surprising baseline stiffness characteristics. The linear stiffness characteristics of the Lunderquist wire possibly contribute to it being the preferred choice for large endograft delivery.

•

A range of stiff and floppy wires are used in endovascular procedures.

•

Very few studies have assessed wire stiffness characteristics.

•

No study has undertaken external quality assurance analyses of wire stiffness.

•

This study confirms consistent wire stiffness characteristics.

•

Predictable Lunderquist wire stiffness supports its choice for device delivery.

Steerable sheath for exclusively femoral bilateral extension of previous fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair with iliac branch devices

We report the treatment of type Ib endoleak after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with iliac branch device (IBD) to allow exclusive transfemoral access without a femoral-to-femoral through-and-through wire. The patient was treated with fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and showed expansion of the aneurysm owing to a type Ib endoleak. An IBD was implanted by the use of a contralateral steerable sheath for internal iliac artery catheterizing. A computed tomography scan showed the patency of the target vessels and resolution of the endoleak. The use of a steerable sheath without femoral-to-femoral through-and-through wire to bridge the internal iliac artery in patients receiving an IBD after prior EVAR is feasible and avoids the risks associated with upper extremity access.

Bilateral internal iliac branch device with ipsilateral deployment

Iliac branch endograft devices offer an elegant solution to preserve perfusion to the internal iliac artery when treating aortoiliac aneurysms; however, they are difficult to perform when bilateral access is not available owing to aortoiliac anatomy or previous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. We present a technique to perform iliac branch endograft deployment from ipsilateral access in a patient with a prior EVAR endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, obviating the need for a difficult up-and-over access.

Estimating the "Pull" on a Pullthrough Wire: A Pilot Study

Objective

Pullthrough/body floss wires are used to track endovascular devices across tortuous aorto-iliac anatomy encountered during endovascular repair of abdominal or thoracic aortic aneurysms. The tension imparted on such wires is arbitrary and has never been quantified. This pilot study attempted to quantify the tension used to stiffen the floppy hydrophilic wires typically used in such a scenario.

Methods

Two linked experiments were undertaken, the first by tasking 13 blinded vascular surgeons (eight male, five female; mean age 36 ± 11 years, including nine trainees) with pulling a long floppy hydrophilic wire (Radifocus Guidewire M Stiff, Terumo UK, Bagshot, Surrey, UK) attached at the other end to a horizontally configured industrial scale (HDN-N Hanging Scale, Kern & Sohn GmbH, Balingen, Germany), to simulate what they individually felt was an “appropriate” tension; the second by using the derived average tensioning force to set up a pullthrough wire within a rigid life like aorto-iliac model to assess whether a test device (16F Sentrant Introducer Sheath, Medtronic Limited, Watford, UK) could be delivered over such a tensioned wire in both brachiofemoral and femorofemoral configurations.

Results

The mean tension exerted by the group on the wire was 38.3 ± 14.8 N (equivalent to 3.9 kgf). Pullthrough wire tensioning was undertaken by fixing one end and applying a 3.9 kg weight at the other. The test device was successfully deployed into the infrarenal aortic position and also across the aortic bifurcation, via brachiofemoral and femorofemoral pullthrough configurations, respectively.

Conclusion

Successful test device deliveries suggest that a minimum tension equivalent to almost 4 kgf applied to a floppy wire can provide “stiffeningˮ to allow device tracking across tortuous aorto-iliac anatomy. More studies are needed to ascertain whether lower tensions can be applied; these results may help provide a platform for other such studies depending on configuration, aortic geometry, and device or wire/tension characteristics.

•

Pullthrough wires are used at EVAR/TEVAR when tortuous anatomy is encountered

•

The tension on such pullthrough wires has not been quantified

•

Typically floppy hydrophilic wires are used to traverse such tortuous anatomy

•

Floppy wires become the functional equivalent of stiff wires when tensioned

•

This study for the first time quantifies the tension forces on pullthrough wires

The Off-Label Use of a Leg Endoprosthesis for Internal Iliac Artery Aneurysm Treatment

The 10-30% of iliac aneurysms involve the internal iliac arteries (IIAs), and their repair still remains a challenge. The endovascular techniques have become the treatment of choice in relation to the improvement of materials, techniques, and less morbidity/mortality compared with open surgery. Regardless of the use of open or endovascular surgery, the preservation of hypogastric blood flow is strongly recommended in the case of occlusion of the contralateral. We describe a case of the use over the instructions for use (IFU), of the GORE Excluder iliac extension for the total successful endovascular exclusion of a voluminous IIA aneurysm in chronic contralateral occlusion. This use over the IFU is applicable and effective in selected patients.

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.

Combined transbrachial and transfemoral strategy to deploy an iliac branch endoprosthesis in the setting of a pre-existing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

This article describes brachial access to position a long sheath in the abdominal aorta in conjunction with a large caliber sheath via the femoral artery ipsilateral to the target site to deliver a 0.018 bodyfloss wire. This bodyfloss wire is inserted into the precannulation port of the iliac branch endoprosthesis (W. L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), which is then advanced from the groin. Once the bifurcated device is deployed, hypogastric access and stenting is achieved from the upper extremity. This technique is an alternative to safely extend the distal seal while preserving the hypogastric artery and has the advantage of limited iliac bifurcation manipulation.

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Patients with Iliac Aneurysms Treated by Open Surgery or Endovascular Repair with Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Treatment of common and internal iliac aneurysms is usually done by open surgery. A novel iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) is commercially available with encouraging initial results. Our objective is to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with iliac aneurysms treated by open surgery (OS) versus endovascular repair with IBE.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective, single-center review of patients who were treated for aortoiliac or isolated common and/or internal iliac artery aneurysms from 2014 to 2017. Patients with connective tissue disorders, infected grafts, or thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, length of hospital (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, estimated blood loss, need for red blood cell transfusion (RBC), and perioperative reinterventions.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients (96% male) were treated with OS (n = 25, mean age 68 ± 8 years) or IBE (n = 42, mean age 73 ± 8 years; P = 0.02) with 1 symptomatic patient in each group. Perioperative mortality occurred in 1 patient in the OS group (4%), with no mortality in the IBE group (P = 0.37) Total LOS and ICU stay was higher for OS compared to IBE (total stay 7.5 ± 3.4 vs. 1.7 ± 1.4 days for IBE, P < 0.0001 and ICU LOS 3.3 ± 2.1 vs. 0.1 ± 0.4 days, P < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss was higher for patients undergoing OS (4,732 ± 2,540 mL) compared to patients treated with IBE (263 ± 451 mL, P < 0.0001), resulting in higher RBC transfusion requirements (1.5 ± 2.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.8 units, P = 0.001). Five patients in the OS group had early procedure-related reinterventions, while 2 patients in the IBE group required reintervention for access site complications (20% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of iliac aneurysms with IBE is feasible and is associated with lower blood loss, LOS and ICU stay, and had lower RBC transfusion requirements. Cost analysis and long-term follow-up will be needed to define the value of this modality for iliac artery aneurysm repair.