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.
Van SterkenburgSMMHeyligersJMMvan BladelM, et al; for the Dutch IBE Collaboration. Experience with the GORE EXCLUDER iliac branch endoprosthesis for common iliac artery aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63:1451–1457.
2.
D’OriaMMastrorilliDDeMartinoR, et al. Current status of endovascular preservation of the internal iliac artery with iliac branch devices. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42:935–948.
3.
SchneiderDBMatsumuraJSLeeJT, et al. Prospective, multicenter study of endovascular repair of aortoiliac and iliac aneurysms using the Gore Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:775–785.
4.
GiaquintaAArditaVFerrerC, et al; Iliac Branch Stent-Graft Italian Trial Collaborators. Isolated common iliac artery aneurysms treated solely with iliac branch stent-grafts: midterm results of a multicenter registry. J Endovasc Ther. 2018;25:169–177.
5.
D’OriaMOderichGSTenorioER, et al. Safety and efficacy of totally percutaneous femoral access for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair of pararenal-thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms [published online January 15, 2020]. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00270-020-02414-8
6.
TenorioEROderichGSSandriGA, et al. Outcomes of an iliac branch endoprosthesis using an “up and over” technique for endovascular repair of failed bifurcated grafts. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70:497–508.
7.
ChaikofEDalmanRLEskandariM, et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67:2–77.
8.
WanhainenAVerziniFVan HerzeeleI, et al. European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 clinical practice guidelines on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57:8–93.
9.
KarthikesalingamAHinchliffeRJHoltPJ, et al. Endovascular aneurysm repair with preservation of the internal iliac artery using the iliac branch graft device. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;39:285–294.
10.
KarthikesalingamAHinchliffeRJMalkawiAH, et al. Morphological suitability of patients with aortoiliac aneurysms for endovascular preservation of the internal iliac artery using commercially available iliac branch graft devices. J Endovasc Ther. 2010;17:163–171.
11.
PearceBJVaruVNGlockerR, et al. Anatomic suitability of aortoiliac aneurysms for next generation branched systems. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29:69–75.
12.
BosiersMJPanuccioGBisdasT, et al. Longer bridging stent grafts in iliac branch endografting doesn’t worsen outcome and expand its applicability, even in concomitant diseased hypogastric arteries [published online October 29, 2018]. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). doi:10.23736/S0021-9509.18.10504-0.
13.
D’OriaMPipitoneMSgorlonG. Endovascular exclusion of hypogastric aneurysms using distal branches of the internal iliac artery as landing zone: a case series. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;46:369.e13–369.e18.
14.
KliewerMPilmonMTaherF, et al. Endovascular treatment of hypogastric artery aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70:1107–1114.
15.
DueppersPDuranMFlorosN, et al. The JOTEC iliac branch device for exclusion of hypogastric artery aneurysms—ABRAHAM study. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70:748–755.
16.
D’OriaMMendesBCBewsK, et al. Perioperative outcomes after use of iliac branch devices (IBDs) compared with hypogastric occlusion or open surgery for elective treatment of aorto-iliac aneurysms in the NSQIP database. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;62:35–44.
17.
JerkkuTMohammedWMKapetaniosD, et al. Extension of iliac branch device repair into the superior gluteal artery is a safe and effective maneuver. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;62:195–205.
18.
SimonteGParlaniGFarchioniL, et al. Lesson learned with the use of iliac branch devices: single centre 10 year experience in 157 consecutive patients. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;54:95–103.
19.
DelayCDegliseSLejayA, et al. Zenith bifurcated iliac side branch device: midterm results and assessment of risk factors for intraoperative thrombosis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;41:141–150.
20.
DonasKPInchingoloMCaoP, et al. Secondary procedures following iliac branch device treatment of aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation: the pELVIS registry. J Endovasc Ther. 2017;24:405–410.
21.
TenorioEROderichGSSandriGA, et al. Impact of onlay fusion and cone beam computed tomography on radiation exposure and technical assessment of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69:1045–1058.e3.
22.
BosanquetDCWilcoxCWhitehurstL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of internal iliac artery occlusion for patients undergoing EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;53:534–548.
23.
KouvelosGNKatsargyrisAAntoniouGA, et al. Outcome after interruption or preservation of internal iliac artery flow during endovascular repair of abdominal aorto-iliac aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;52:621–634.
24.
ConwayBDGreenbergRKMastracciTM, et al. Renal artery implantation angles in thoracoabdominal aneurysms and their implications in the era of branched endografts. J Endovasc Ther. 2010;17:380–387.
25.
SugimotoMPanuccioGBisdasT, et al. Tortuosity is the significant predictive factor for renal branch occlusion after branched endovascular aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;51:350–357.
26.
GallittoEFaggioliGPiniR, et al. Renal artery orientation influences the renal outcome in endovascular thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56:382–390.
27.
DonasKPBisdasTTorselloG, et al. Technical considerations and performance of bridging stent-grafts for iliac side branches devices based on a pooled analysis of single-center experiences. J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19:667–671.
28.
VerziniFParlaniGVarettoG, et al. Late outcomes of different hypogastric stent-grafts in aortoiliac endografting with iliac branch device: Results from the pELVIS registry [published online December 24, 2019.]. J Vasc Surg. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.09.065.
29.
DonasKPTanevaGTPitouliasGA, et al; on behalf of the pELVIS Registry collaborators. Coexisting hypogastric aneurysms worsen the outcomes of endovascular treatment by the iliac branch devices within the pELVIS Registry. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69:1072–1079.e1.
30.
BellandiGVentoruzzoG.Endovascular bilateral evolutive common iliac artery aneurysm repair using a Zenith branch graft through a combined femoro-brachial approach in a patient with previous EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:596–598.
31.
D’OriaMChiarandiniSPipitoneM, et al. Urgent use of Gore Excluder Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis with left transaxillary approach for preservation of the residual hypogastric artery: a case series. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;51:326.e17–326.e21.
32.
FerrerCVenturiniLGrandeG, et al. A steerable sheath to deploy hypogastric bridging stent by contralateral femoral approach in an iliac branch procedure after endovascular aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;44:415.e1–415.e5.
33.
OberhuberADuranMErtasN, et al. Implantation of an iliac branch device after EVAR via a femoral approach using a steerable sheath. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22:610–612.
34.
DawsonDLSandriGATenorioER, et al. Up-and-over technique for implantation of iliac branch devices after prior aortic endograft repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2018;25:21–27.
