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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

abdominal aortic aneurysm aortoiliac disease iliac branch device center volume

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kouvelos

Katsargyris

Antoniou

, 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.

Bosanquet

Wilcox

Whitehurst

, 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.

D’Oria

Mastrorilli

DeMartino

, et al. Current status of endovascular preservation of the internal iliac artery with iliac branch devices (IBD). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42:935–948.

Gibello

Varetto

Ruffino

, et al. Long term outcomes of endovascular aortic repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and ectatic common iliac arteries. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;60:356–364.

Chaikof

Dalman

Eskandari

, 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.e2.

Wanhainen

Verzini

Van Herzeele

, et al. Editor’s Choice—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.

Giosdekos

Antonopoulos

Sfyroeras

, et al. The use of iliac branch devices for preservation of flow in internal iliac artery during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71:2133–2144.

D’Oria

Mendes

Bews

, et al. Perioperative outcomes after use of iliac branch devices compared with hypogastric occlusion or open surgery for elective treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms in the NSQIP database. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;62:35–44.

Pini

Faggioli

Indelicate

, et al. Early and late outcome of common iliac aneurysms treated by flared limbs or iliac branch devices during endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30:503–510.

10.

Donas

Inchingolo

Cao

, 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.

11.

Schneider

Matsumura

Lee

, 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.

12.

de Marino

Botos

Kouvelos

, et al. Use of bilateral Cook Zenith iliac branch devices to preserve internal iliac artery flow during endovascular aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57:213–219.

13.

Maldonado

Mosquera

Lin

, et al; on behalf of the Gore Bilateral IBE Study Group. Gore Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis for treatment of bilateral common iliac artery aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68:100–108.e3.

14.

Wanhainen

Haulon

Kohl

Centralization of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair—we can no longer ignore the benefits!

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;60:500–501.

15.

Lepidi

D’Oria

Long-term benefits of EVAR in the modern era: the importance of looking at durability of stent-grafts without forgetting the right pathophysiology. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;60:956–957.

16.

Boyle

JR.

Is in hospital mortality following EVAR still a valid outcome measure?

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57:520.

17.

Donas

Taneva

Pitoulias

, 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.

18.

Jerkku

Mohammed

Kapetanios

, 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.

19.

D’Oria

Tenorio

Oderich

, et al. Outcomes of the Gore Excluder Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis using division branches of the internal iliac artery as distal landing zone. J Endovasc Ther. 2020;27:316–327.

20.

D’Oria

Mastrorilli

Ziani

Natural history, diagnosis, and management of type II endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR): review and update. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;62:420–431.

21.

D’Oria

Oderich

Tenorio

, et al. Natural history of isolated type II endoleaks in patients treated by fenestrated-branched endovascular repair for pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72:44–54.

22.

Verzini

Parlani

Varetto

, et al; on behalf of the pELVIS Investigators. Late outcomes of different hypogastric stent grafts in aortoiliac endografting with iliac branch device: results from the pELVIS Registry. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72:549–555.e1.

23.

Fargion

Masciello

Pratesi

, et al; on behalf of the ELVIS Registry collaborators. Results of the multicenter pELVIS Registry for isolated common iliac aneurysms treated by the iliac branch device. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68:1367–1373.e1.

24.

Eagleton

Shaw

Petkosevek

, et al. Hypogastric and subclavian artery patency affects onset and recovery of spinal cord ischemia associated with aortic endografting. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59:89–94.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB

0.05 MB

0.10 MB

5.94 MB