Long-term results of iliac aneurysm repair with iliac branched endograft. A 5-year experience on 100 consecutive cases

Background: Iliac branch device (IBD) technique has been introduced as an appealing and effective solution to avoid complications occurring during repair of aorto-iliac aneurysm with extensive iliac involvement. Nevertheless, no large series with long-term follow-up of IBD are available. The aim of this study was to analyse safety and long-term efficacy of IBD in a consecutive series of patients.Methods: Between 2006 and 2011, 100 consecutive patients were enrolled in a prospective database on IBD. Indications included unilateral or bilateral common iliac artery aneurysms combined or not with abdominal aneurysms. Patients were routinely followed up with computed tomography. Data were reported according to the Kaplan-Meier method.Results: There were 96 males, mean age 74.1 years. Preoperative median common iliac aneurysm diameter was 40 mm (interquartile range (IQR): 35-44 mm). Sixty-seven patients had abdominal aortic aneurysm >35 mm (IQR: 40-57 mm) associated with iliac aneurysm. Eleven patients presented hypogastric aneurysm. Twelve patients underwent isolated iliac repair with IBD and 88 patients received associated endovascular aortic repair. Periprocedural technical success rate was 95%, with no mortality. Two patients experienced external iliac occlusion in the first month. At a median follow-up of 21 months (range 1-60) aneurysm growth >3 mm was detected in four iliac (4%) arteries. Iliac endoleak (one type III and two distal type I) developed in three patients and buttock claudication in four patients. Estimated patency rate of internal iliac branch was 91.4% at 1 and 5 years. Freedom from any reintervention rate was 90% at 1 year and 81.4% at 5 years. No late ruptures occurred.Conclusions: Long-term results show that IBD use can ensure persistent iliac aneurysm exclusion at 5 years, with low risk of reintervention. This technique can be considered as a first endovascular option in patients with extensive iliac aneurysm disease and favourable anatomy. (C) 2011 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Does the Presence of an Iliac Aneurysm Affect Outcome of Endoluminal AAA Repair? An Analysis of 336 Cases

AbstractObjective: to determine whether the presence of an iliac aneurysm compromises outcome of endovascular exclusion of AAA and to ascertain the fate of the iliac aneurysmal sac.Patients and methods: between April 1997 and March 2001, data on 336 consecutive patients undergoing endovascular repair for AAA were entered in a prospective database. Suitability for endovascular repair was assessed by preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography. A maximum common iliac artery (CIA) diameter ≥20mm was defined as iliac aneurysm. Patients with and without iliac aneurysms were compared to early (immediate conversion or perioperative death) and late failure (increase in aneurysm diameter or persisting graft-related endoleak, or late AAA rupture or conversion).Results: fifty-nine patients (18%) had iliac aneurysms, 19 were bilateral, for a total of 78 aneurysmal iliac arteries (median diameter 23mm; range 20–50mm). A distal seal was achieved by landing in 33 external iliac arteries, in 20 ectatic CIAs, and in 25 normal CIAs. Operating time differed significantly between patients with and without CIA aneurysms (153±71 vs 123±55min,p =0.0001), whereas no statistically significant differences were found with respect to early and late failure (2% vs 3%, p=0.5 and 14% vs 8%, p=0.11, respectively). There were no cases of buttock or colon necrosis. At a median follow-up of 14 months (range 0–46; i.q.r. 7–27 months) common iliac diameter decreased ≥2mm in 49 cases, remained stable in 25, and increased ≥2mm in 3.Conclusion: the presence of iliac aneurysm rendered endoluminal AAA repair more complex but did not affect feasibility and long-term outcome of the procedure. In our experience internal iliac exclusion was never associated with significant morbidity. These data may be useful when considering endovascular repair in high-risk patients with challenging anatomy

Quality of Life in Patients with Small Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: The Effect of Early Endovascular Repair Versus Surveillance in the CAESAR Trial

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate and compare changes over time in health-related quality of life reported by patients with small (4.1–5.4 cm) abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) or surveillance.MethodsParticipants were randomly assigned to receive either early EVAR or surveillance within a multicentre, randomised clinical trial on small AAA (Comparison of surveillance vs. Aortic Endografting for Small Aneurysm Repair, CAESAR). Patient-reported health-related quality of life was assessed before randomisation, at 6 months and yearly thereafter using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey.ResultsBetween 2004 and 2008, 360 patients (345 males, mean age 68.9 years) were randomised, 182 to early EVAR and 178 to surveillance. There was one perioperative death. Mean follow-up was 31.8 months. No significant difference in survival was found. At baseline, comparable quality of life scores were recorded in both treatment groups: Total SF-36: 73.0 versus 75.5 (p = 0.18), Physical domain: 71.4 versus 73.3 (p = 0.33); Mental health domain: 70.9 versus 72.7 (p = 0.33), in the EVAR arm versus the surveillance arm, respectively. Six months after randomisation, Total SF-36 and Physical and Mental domain scores were all significantly higher with respect to baseline in the EVAR group, while patients of the surveillance group scored lower. The differences between EVAR and surveillance arms in score changes at 6 months were significant and in favour of EVAR: Total score: difference 5.4; p = 0.0017; Physical: difference 3.8; p = 0.02; and Mental: difference 6.0; p = 0.0005. Differences between EVAR and surveillance diminished over time. At the last assessment, patients in both groups had decreased scores with a significant drop with respect to the baseline (−3.9 in EVAR, −6.3 in surveillance). There were no significant differences between the EVAR and surveillance arms: Total score: p = 0.25; Physical: p = 0.47; and Mental: p = 0.38.ConclusionsPatients with small AAA under surveillance compared with early EVAR had significant impaired functional health at 6 months after assignment. After a mean of 31.8 months, SF-36 health-related quality of life in patients allocated to early EVAR and surveillance was similar