Iliac Branch Devices Implantation Research Articles

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

ObjectiveThe aim of this multicentric study was to assess the “REsults of iliac branch deviceS for hypogastriC salvage after previoUs aortic rEpair (RESCUE).” MethodsAll 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. ResultsA 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). ConclusionsEndovascular 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.

Midterm Results of a Surgeon-Modified Device to Preserve the Flow of the Internal Iliac Artery During Endovascular Repair of Aneurysm: Single-Center Experiences

During endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), commercial iliac branch devices (IBDs) have become an inescapable alternative for preserving antegrade internal iliac artery (IIA) blood flow. Due to the different morphological features of aneurysms, commercial IBDs may not be suitable for all patients. Reported experience with the implantation of the new surgeon-modified IBD (sm IBD) is limited. This investigation describes the indications, efficacy, and safety of the sm IBD. Data from consecutive elective implantations of IBDs in patients between March 2011 and May 2021 in a single center were incorporated. The sm IBDs were indicated in patients with common iliac artery aneurysms (CIAAs) and with a challenging anatomy and in those patients with or without abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Fifteen patients (15 male, mean age 67.6±7.9years) were included. Fifteen sm IBDs were implanted in 1 procedure (100%). Fourteen (93.3%) patients had simultaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and 1 (6.7%) patient previously had a bilateral CIAAs repair by EVAR. The mean common iliac artery (CIA) diameter was 36.6±12.5mm. Technical success was obtained in all patients (100%). The median operation time was 189.7±78.6min, with a median fluoroscopy time of 45.3±15.9min. Axillary artery access was used in 11 (73.3%) procedures. The mean total hospital stay was 5.6±2.8days, and the postoperative follow-up was 35.4months (range 2-120). The estimated IIA bridge stent patency at 1year after operation was 100% and 85.7%±13.2% 5years postoperatively. One (6.7%) IIA branch was occluded, and this patient remained asymptomatic. One patient (6.7%) needed reintervention, and another (6.7%) patient had type II leakage, which is currently under close surveillance. Using an IBD to maintain the pelvic blood flow is an effective and feasible intravascular technique, especially for patients with an abnormal iliac artery anatomy. This novel technique has similar midterm procedural success rate compared to the use of commercial IBDs. Therefore, these devices are more suitable for patients with certain anatomic challenges and can be used as an alternative treatment.

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.

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.

Unique Complications and Failure Modes of Iliac Branch Devices

Iliac branch devices (IBDs) are modular, bifurcated endografts designed to preserve hypogastric flow during endovascular aortoiliac aneurysm repair. We report our single center outcomes, and describe the unique complications of these devices: inability to cannulate the hypogastric artery (technical failure), occlusion of the internal branch, and type III endoleak from separation of components between the main body and IBD. A prospectively maintained institutional database of patients undergoing IBD implantation between 2014 and 2019 was reviewed. Technical and clinical outcomes were evaluated. We then identified patients having one of the IBD-specific complications and patient, anatomic, and procedural data were analyzed to identify factors associated with these failures. Sixty-four IBDs were placed in 59 patients during the study period. Mean age was 71.2 ± 8.6, and 92% were male. A 74.6% of patients had a current or prior abdominal aortic aneurysm, and 9.4% had a hypogastric aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in 60/64 cases (93.8%); prior endovascular aortic repair was associated with technical failure (P = 0.04). There were 5 instances of component separation between the main body and the IBD: 3 occurred intraoperatively and were repaired with additional bridging components, and 2 occurred on late follow-up and required reintervention. Increased tortuosity index of both aortoiliac (1.7 ± 0.4 vs. 1.3 ± 02, P = 0.04) and iliac-specific (3.9 ± 2.4 vs. 1.9 ± 0.9, P = 0.03) segments were significantly associated with component separation, as was the use of larger internal iliac components (13.9 ± 2.4 vs. 11.1 ± 2.3 mm, P = 0.04). Internal branch occlusions occurred in 4 patients (6.7%). Two were successfully reopened with endovascular procedures, with two being asymptomatic. No specific factors were found to be predictive of branch occlusion. IBD-specific complications occur rarely. History of prior endovascular aortic repair is associated with technical failure, while increased aortic and iliac tortuosity are predictive of component separation and type III endoleak. Severe tortuosity should be carefully considered when planning for IBD.

Endovascular treatment of common iliac artery aneurisms

To demonstrate endovascular management of common iliac artery aneurysms with iliac branch devices and to discuss some technical aspects of these interventions including bilateral procedures. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with concomitant implantation of iliac branch devices was performed in 9 patients at the Petrovsky National Research Center of Surgery for the period from January 2019 to December 2020. Mean age of patients was 64.8± years (min 52; max 72 years). Preoperative planning and morphometric analysis were based on CT data with a slice thickness of 1 mm. Angiographic reconstruction was made using Osirix 3D software (OsiriX Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland). Abdominal aortic aneurysm was combined with common iliac artery aneurysm in 7 patients (77.7%). Three (33.3%) patients had isolated common iliac artery aneurysm without significant abdominal aorta enlargement (Reber type I). Bilateral common iliac artery aneurysms were detected in 1 (11.1%) patient. All patients had iliac artery aneurysms over 4 cm. Iliac branch device implantation was accompanied by endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair in all patients. Technical success rate was 100%. Six-month results were followed-up in 5 patients (55.5%), annual outcomes - in 2 patients (22.2%). Control examination consisted of a telephone interview, ultrasound of abdominal aorta, pelvic and lower limb arteries and computed tomography. All patients had no endoleaks, stent-graft thrombosis, as well as signs of ischemia of pelvic organs and lower extremities. Incidence of iliac artery aneurysm combined with abdominal aortic aneurysms is about 20%. Until recently, treatment of these patients was performed exclusively with covering of internal iliac artery. Improvement of technologies and development of iliac branch devices made it possible to preserve blood flow in internal iliac artery after endovascular management. This approach allowed avoiding of ischemic complications associated with embolization of internal iliac arteries.

Results of Iliac Branch Devices in Octogenarians Within the pELVIS Registry

Purpose: To evaluate if the elderly could benefit from the implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs) to preserve the patency of the internal iliac artery (IIA) in aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation. Materials and Methods: From January 2005 to April 2017, 804 patients enrolled in the pELVIS registry underwent endovascular aneurysm repair with 910 IBDs due to aneurysmal involvement of the iliac bifurcation. Among the 804 patients, 157 (19.5%) were octogenarians (mean age 82.9±2.5 years; 157 men) with 171 target IIAs for preservation. Outcomes at 30 days included technical success, death, conversion to open surgery, and major complications. Outcomes evaluated in follow-up were patency of the IBD and target vessels, type I and type III endoleaks, aneurysm-related reinterventions, aneurysm-related death, and overall patient survival. Kaplan-Meier analyses were employed to evaluate the late outcome measures; the estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Technical success was 99.4% with no intraoperative conversions or deaths (1 bridging stent could not be implanted, and the IIA was sacrificed). Perioperative mortality was 1.9%. The overall perioperative aneurysm-related complication rate was 8.9% (14/157), with an early reintervention rate of 5.1% (8/157). Median postoperative radiological and clinical follow-up were 21.8 months (range 1–127) and 29.3 months (range 1–127), respectively. Estimated rates of freedom from occlusion of the IBD, the IIA, and the external iliac artery at 60 months were 97.7% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.3%), 97.3% (95% CI 95.7% to 98.9%), and 98.6% (95% CI 97% to 99.9%), respectively. Estimated rates of freedom from type I and type III endoleaks and device migration at 60 months were 90.9% (95% CI 87% to 94.3%), 98.7% (95% CI 97.5% to 99.8%), and 98% (95% CI 96.4% to 99.6%), respectively. Freedom from all cause reintervention at 60 months was 87.4% (95% CI 82.6% to 92.2%). The estimated overall survival rate at 60 months was 59% (95% CI 52.4% to 65.6%). Conclusion: IBD implantation in octogenarians provided acceptable perioperative mortality and morbidity rates, with satisfying long-term freedom from IBD-related complications and should be considered a feasible repair option for selected elderly patients affected by aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation.

The Use of Iliac Branched Devices in the Acute Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Aortoiliac Aneurysms

The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and midterm outcomes of iliac branch devices (IBDs) to preserve the internal iliac artery perfusion in emergent endovascular repair of ruptured aorto-iliac aneurysms. Between December 2012 and July 2017, a total of 8 IBDs were implanted in 6 patients (the median age 65years; all men) in a single tertiary referral center. The indication for IBD implantation was a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm with a concomitant common iliac artery aneurysm (n=4) or isolated CIA aneurysms (n=2). The main outcome measures were technical and clinical success. The secondary outcomes were primary and primary assisted patency, the occurrence of type I/III endoleaks, and reinterventions. All patients were hemodynamically stable during the procedures, which were performed under local anesthesia. Technical success was achieved in all cases (the median total procedure time of 188min and the median IBD procedure time of 28min). The median follow-up was 34months (interquartile range 19-78). There were no deaths during the follow-up and no major complications unrelated to the IBD. Two (25%) secondary interventions were performed for IBD occlusion in patients with bilateral IBDs. The other reintervention was a type II endoleak embolization in 1 of these 2 patients. The freedom from reintervention estimate was 75% through 2years. The overall primary assisted patency was 100% through 3years. The use of IBDs in the acute setting is feasible to exclude ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms while maintaining pelvic circulation. The secondary intervention rate is considerable; however, the midterm assisted primary patency rates are promising. Further studies are needed to guide patient selection and to evaluate longer term outcomes.

A propensity score-matched comparison of two commercially available iliac branch devices in patients with similar clinical and anatomic preoperative features

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the perioperative and midterm results of Zenith Bifurcated Iliac Side (ZBIS; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) and Gore Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE; W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) iliac branch devices (IBDs) in treatment of dilated iliac bifurcations in patients with similar anatomic and clinical preoperative features. MethodsBetween July 2007 and May 2018, 190 IBDs were implanted at two high-volume Italian vascular and endovascular centers. Among the series, preoperative propensity score matching based on preoperative anatomic and clinical factors was performed, and two homogeneous groups were created: group 1, 35 Cook ZBIS IBD implants; and group 2, 35 Gore IBE devices. Early results were analyzed in terms of technical success, death, conversion to open surgery, and occurrence of major local and systemic complications. Follow-up results were analyzed in terms of patency of the IBD, freedom from type I and type III endoleaks, aneurysm-related reintervention, and aneurysm-related death. ResultsTechnical success was achieved in all implants from both groups. Perioperative IBD-related complications and major complications occurred in one case from group 1 (P = .49). No perioperative mortality was recorded in the two groups. Mean postoperative follow-up was 46.7 months in group 1 (standard deviation, ± 36.3) and 20.8 months in group 2 (standard deviation, ± 15.9; P < .0001). None of the IBDs or target hypogastric arteries occluded during follow-up in this series. Estimated 36-month freedom from type I and type III endoleaks was 97% (standard error [SE], 0.03) in group 1 and 87% (SE, 0.09) in group 2 (P = .34; log-rank, 0.9). Estimated freedom from IBD-related reintervention was 97% (SE, 0.03) in group 1 and 93% (SE, 0.06) in group 2 (P = .81; log-rank, 0.05). The estimated rates of overall survival at 36 months from the IBD implantation were 95% (SE, 0.04) in group 1 and 88% (SE, 0.08) in group 2 (P = .03; log-rank, 4.7); freedom from aneurysm-related death was 100% in group 1 and 93% (SE, 0.06) in group 2 (P = .19; log-rank, 1.7). ConclusionsThe propensity score-matched comparison between the Cook ZBIS and Gore IBE devices showed similar, satisfying perioperative and midterm results in the experience of two high-volume Italian vascular centers.

Endovascular treatment of hypogastric artery aneurysms

ObjectiveInternal iliac artery aneurysm (IIAA) is a rare entity. Its treatment can be technically challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment possibilities in an era of advanced endovascular techniques and their potential to preserve iliac blood flow while reliably excluding the aneurysm. MethodsA retrospective analysis of 46 consecutive patients with endovascularly treated IIAA was performed. Data were collected from a single-institution aortoiliac database. The following end points were recorded: technique of aneurysm exclusion, technical success rates, perioperative morbidity and mortality, primary patency, and midterm follow-up. ResultsBetween September 2009 and May 2016, a total of 46 patients with 55 IIAAs were identified. The majority of patients (n = 39 [84.8%]) had aortoiliac aneurysms and seven had isolated IIAAs (15.2%). The following surgical techniques were used: implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs; n = 29), occlusion of the internal iliac artery (IIA) by ostium coverage with or without prior coil embolization (n = 23), and other endovascular techniques (n = 3). Primary assisted technical success was achieved in 93.1% of IBD implantations and in 100% of occlusions by ostium coverage and other techniques. Overall 30-day mortality was 4.3% (n = 2) and 0% in electively treated patients. Assisted midterm patency after IBD implantation was 93.1%. Gluteal claudication occurred in seven patients (15.2%) who had undergone intentional or accidental occlusion of the IIA or the superior gluteal artery. Reintervention rates within the midterm follow-up were 13.8% (n = 4) after IBD implantation and 4.3% (n = 1) after coverage of the IIA ostium. No ruptures were observed during follow-up, and no complications occurred during reinterventions. ConclusionsImplantation of IBD devices for the treatment of hypogastric artery aneurysms shows good technical results with a high primary patency and a low rate of perioperative complications. Although successful aneurysm exclusion while preserving pelvic blood flow is associated with a higher rate of reinterventions during midterm follow-up, it should be taken into consideration, especially in complex endovascular aortoiliac aneurysm repair.

Early and Late Outcome of Common Iliac Aneurysms Treated by Flared Limbs or Iliac Branch Devices during Endovascular Aortic Repair

PurposeTo compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with flared limbs (FLs) vs iliac branch devices (IBDs) for common iliac artery aneurysm to determine possible differences in outcome. Materials and MethodsFrom 2012 to 2017, all patients with standard EVAR with FLs and aortoiliac anatomy fit for implantation of IBDs were retrospectively selected and compared with patients with standard EVAR and IBDs. The study included 150 patients with 162 iliac treatments: 105 (65%) FLs and 57 (35%) IBDs. Iliac complications (ICs), including internal iliac artery (IIA) loss, limb thrombosis, and type 1b or type 3 endoleak, were considered at 30 days and in the follow-up period. ResultsProcedural time and volume of contrast medium were significantly higher in IBD vs FL procedures (90 min ± 33 vs 70 min ± 25, P = .01; 130 mL ± 40 vs 80 mL ± 20, P = .01). Perioperative rate of ICs was similar between IBDs and FLs (0% vs 3.8% [4 IIA loss], P = .25). During 35-month median follow-up, there were 10 ICs, all in FLs group (4 IIA perioperative loss, 4 type 1b endoleak, 2 limb occlusion). By Kaplan-Meier analysis, survival free of ICs was significantly higher in IBD group after 4 years of follow-up (1 y 100% vs 96%, P = .36; 2 y 100% vs 94%, P = .14; 3 y 100% vs 91%, P = .07; 4 y 100% vs 87%, P = .03; 5 y 100% vs 78%, P = .02). ConclusionsIBDs and FLs have similar perioperative results. IBDs require longer procedural time and greater contrast medium volume; however, they are associated with lower ICs after 4 years of follow-up.

Current Status of Endovascular Preservation of the Internal Iliac Artery with Iliac Branch Devices (IBD).

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the most utilized treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), but the presence of common iliac dilatation or aneurysm may prevent the achievement of effective distal seal and fixation. Ideal repair in these cases should involve both effective preservation of the pelvic circulation and durable exclusion of the AAA. Unilateral or bilateral internal iliac artery (IIA) preservation with iliac branch devices (IBD) is safe, feasible and effective with technical and clinical outcomes comparable to standard EVAR. The versatility of current devices has allowed extended application to complex cases, but must be considered carefully in difficult anatomies. Pending long-term durability results and formal cost-effectiveness appraisals, IBD implantation has several advantages to anatomically eligible patients as compared with other available open or endovascular/hybrid solutions for IIA preservation during EVAR for aortoiliac aneurysms.

Use of Bilateral Cook Zenith Iliac Branch Devices to Preserve Internal Iliac Artery Flow During Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Iliac branch devices (IBD) have become a widespread option to preserve antegrade internal iliac artery (IIA) flow during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Reported experience with bilateral implantation of IBDs is limited. This study aimed to describe the indications, technical options, and outcomes with the use of bilateral IBDs. All patients undergoing elective implantation of bilateral Cook Zenith IBD between January 2010 and September 2017 in a single centre were included. Bilateral IBD was indicated in physically active, anatomically suitable patients and those with previous or concomitant surgery for a thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm or impaired collateral circulation to the IIA. Data were collected prospectively. Twenty-nine patients (29 male, mean age 64.1±10 years) were included. Of the 58 IBDs, 48 (83%) were implanted in one procedure and 10 (17%) in two procedures (mean time between procedures 30.4±9 months). Nineteen patients (65%) had a previous or simultaneous EVAR and the remaining 10 (35%) a previous or simultaneous complex aortic repair. Mean CIA diameter was 35.2±8mm. Technical success was achieved in 55 of the 58 IBDs (95%) with no mortality. Axillary artery access was used in 13 (38%) procedures. During follow up, four (7%) IIA branches occluded (1 bilateral occlusion and 2 unilateral). Estimated IIA branch patency at one and three years was 97.8%±2% and 88.5%±7%, respectively. All patients with late IIA occlusion remained asymptomatic. Re-intervention was needed in four patients (14%): two bridging stent graft extensions for type Ib endoleak, one relining of the external iliac artery because of mural in-stent thrombus and one femoro-femoral crossover bypass to treat an external iliac limb occlusion. Bilateral implantation of IBDs is a safe and effective technique to preserve IIA flow in selected patients with suitable anatomy, showing similar technical success and mid-term outcomes to the unilateral use of the device.

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

Purpose: To describe a modified up-and-over access technique for treatment of iliac artery aneurysms in patients with prior bifurcated stent-grafts for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Technique: This technique uses a coaxial 12-F flexible sheath that is docked with a through-and-through wire into a 7-F sheath advanced from the contralateral femoral approach. This maneuver allows both sheaths to be moved as a unit while maintaining position of the apex of the system as it loops over the flow divider, avoiding damage to or displacing the extant endograft. Once the 12-F sheath is positioned in the iliac limb of the aortic stent-graft and secured in place with the through-and-through wire, the repair is extended into the internal iliac artery using a bridging stent-graft or covered stent introduced via a coaxial sheath. Conclusion: The up-and-over technique with a flexible 12-F sheath mated with a 7-F sheath from the opposite side allows bilateral femoral access to be used for iliac branch device placement after prior aortic endograft procedures that create a higher, acutely angled bifurcation. Use of a through-and-through wire and a coaxial sheath for stent delivery creates a very stable platform for intervention.

Secondary Procedures Following Iliac Branch Device Treatment of Aneurysms Involving the Iliac Bifurcation: The pELVIS Registry

Purpose: To evaluate the incidence and reasons for secondary procedures in patients treated with iliac branch devices (IBDs) for isolated iliac aneurysm or aortoiliac aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2015, 575 surgical-high-risk patients (mean age 72.0±8.4 years; 558 men) with isolated iliac aneurysms (n=79) or aortoiliac aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation (n=496) were treated with placement of 650 ZBIS or Gore IBDs (75 bilateral) in 6 European centers. The primary outcome was procedure-related reinterventions for occlusion or high-grade (>70%) stenosis of the bridging device, occlusion of the ipsilateral common or external iliac artery (EIA), type I/III endoleak, rupture, or infection following IBD implantation. Clinical and radiological data were analyzed based on preset definitions of comorbidities, aneurysm morphology, intraoperative variables, and follow-up strategies. Results: Nine (1.6%) reinterventions were performed within 30 days for occlusion or endoleak. Among 10 (1.5%) occluded EIAs ipsilateral to a deployed IBD, 6 underwent a reintervention with additional stent placement after thrombolysis (n=4) or a femorofemoral or iliofemoral crossover bypass (n=2). Three of 14 patients with early type I endoleak had a reintervention for an insufficient proximal sealing zone (stent-grafts in 2 common iliac arteries and 1 bifurcated endograft). Mean clinical and radiological follow-up were 32.6±9.9 and 29.8±21.1 months, respectively. Forty-two (7.3%) patients underwent reinterventions in the follow-up period. The overall postoperative reintervention rate was 8.9%. Both external and common iliac segments occluded in 30 (4.6%) IBDs; 2 patients had a crossover bypass and 14 were treated with endovascular techniques. In the other 14 patients, no specific treatment was performed. Seven (1.2%) patients with isolated EIA occlusion were treated during follow-up. Nineteen of the overall 28 patients with type I endoleak underwent endovascular repair. The other 9 were under radiological surveillance due to less significant (<5 mm) sac increase. No reintervention was performed to recanalize 11 (1.6%) occluded internal iliac arteries. Conclusion: Midterm experience with placement of IBDs is associated with a low incidence of secondary procedures due to type I endoleaks and occlusions. The main reasons for reinterventions seem to be short proximal sealing zone and poor conformability of the ZBIS device in elongated EIAs.

The Impact of Preserving Pelvic Perfusion Using Iliac Branch Devices on Quality of Life

Background: Aorto-iliac aneurysms with extensive iliac involvement compromise distal seal during endovascular repair. Sacrificing internal iliac artery, with embolization, and therefore pelvic perfusion to create an adequate distal landing zone is associated with significant morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare patient related outcomes and quality of life between preserving pelvic perfusion with iliac branch devices and embolization.Methods: Patients undergoing elective infrarenal EVAR with internal iliac adjunct over a 4-year period were identified from prospective local and national databases. Case notes and procedural images were reviewed. Patients were contacted by telephone to assess post-operative symptoms and impact on quality of life using validated questionnaires.Results: 12 patients had iliac branch devices (IBD) implanted and 16 patient’s internal iliac artery embolization. IBD technical success rate was 92% with 100% patency rate at median follow-up of 12 months. Higher morbidity was associated with loss of pelvic perfusion and patients reported poorer quality of life. 4 patients developed new erectile dysfunction in the embolization group (0 IBD; p=0.06). New ipsilateral buttock claudication developed in 1 patient with preserved IIA perfusion by IBD and 8 with occluded IIA (p=0.03).Conclusions: Routine embolization of IIA to treat aortoiliac aneurysms results in significant morbidity and reduces patient reported quality of life. Preservation of pelvic perfusion with successful IBD implantation may reduce postoperative ipsilateral buttock claudication and thus have a positive impact on quality of life. Larger prospective patient reported outcome measure studies after endovascular aneurysm repair are required alongside safety and efficacy trials.

Use of iliac branch devices for endovascular repair of aneurysmal distal seal zones after EVAR.

To assess the feasibility and midterm outcomes of iliac branch devices (IBD) for the treatment of aneurysmal distal seal zones after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Between January 2005 and January 2014, 188 patients with aortic aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation underwent IBD implantation; of these, 18 consecutive patients (17 men; mean age 70±10 years) were treated for aneurysmal degeneration of 22 distal seal zones (mean 36±6-mm diameter) after EVAR. The main outcome measure was technical success. Further outcomes were primary and assisted primary patency of the internal iliac branch, types Ib/III endoleaks, reintervention, and all-cause mortality. The technical success rate was 100%. The primary patency rate was 100% over a median follow-up of 15 months (interquartile range 4-25). None of the patients developed type Ib or III endoleak. During surveillance, two device-related reinterventions were performed (thrombectomy of an occluded external iliac artery and angioplasty with stenting of a stenotic common iliac artery). One patient died due to metastatic prostate cancer. Iliac side branch endografting showed excellent feasibility and encouraging midterm outcomes for the challenging endovascular repair of aneurysmal distal seal zones post EVAR.

Perioperative Evaluation of Iliac ZBIS Branch Devices: A French Multicenter Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate short-term results of endovascular treatment of common iliac artery (CIA) aneurysms without a distal neck by using iliac branch devices (IBDs), which enable maintenance of antegrade perfusion to the internal iliac artery(IIA). Our investigation was done in a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized manner. IBD were implanted to exclude CIA aneurysms with a diameter >25 mm in patients unfit for open repair. The stent grafts were designed based on preoperative angio-CT findings. A covered stent implantation between the IBD and the target IIA was performed during the same surgical procedure. Angio-CT was performed within the 30 days after the procedure. From January 2009 to April 2010, 39 patients were included in our study (38 men and 1 woman, mean age 73 years). The CIA aneurysm (mean diameter 32.3 mm) was isolated in 15 patients and associated with an abdominal aorta aneurysm (mean diameter 66 mm) in 24 patients. The IBD was systematically connected to a bifurcated aortobiiliac stent graft. The bifurcated stent graft was implanted during the same procedure in all patients, except for two who had a bifurcated stent graft history. Median surgery time, fluoroscopy time, and volume of contrast product were 192 (range 90-360) minutes, 32 (10-120) minutes, and 150 (60-352) mL, respectively. In 37 patients (95%), the internal iliac branch was patent at the end of the surgery. In two patients (5%), it was occluded, entailing a subischemic colic episode and buttock claudication in one of them. To treat a type I endoleak, a proximal extension partially covering a renal artery was implanted during the same surgery. A type III endoleak was diagnosed on the postoperative angio-CT. In three patients, a cross-over femorofemoral bypass was performed for an external iliac leg thrombosis (and for an internal iliac branch thrombosis in one case). In all, at 30 days, no death was reported and the success rate was 90% (three leg stenoses and a type III endoleak). IBD implantation to maintain an antegrade internal iliac perfusion is possible and has shown promising early success. Our results can be compared with those in the published literature. A learning curve will be needed to improve the technical success rate.

Using bilateral iliac branch devices for endovascular iliac aneurysm repair

The endovascular repair of bilateral iliac aneurysms using bilateral Iliac Branch Devices (IBDs) has been infrequently performed and reported.We aim to describe this technique and report on the results of our case series. Three different device designs are available. The procedural options include a totally transfemoral approach, or a combined transfemoral and brachial approach. Clinical records for patients who have had this procedure were reviewed. The indications for the technique include bilateral common iliac artery aneurysm repair, with or without concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Considerations include the timing of main body endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) device introduction, the use of a proximal access site and the type of IIA stent-graft that is used. Between 2007 and 2010, six patients had bilateral IBD implantation. All patients required an EVAR main body device in addition to bilateral IBDs. Eighty-three per cent were males, mean age was 73 years. Mean follow up was 15 months. Technical success was obtained in 100% of cases. There was one branch occlusion (8.3%). There were no type I endoleaks. One patient had a type II endoleak. Bilateral IBDs can be used safely and with excellent rates of technical success and branch patency in appropriately selected patients.