Objective: Hypogastric aneurysms (HAs) frequently coexist with aortoiliac aneurysms (AIAs). However, the presence of an HA is a contraindication to endovascular aneurysm treatment by iliac branch devices (IBDs) because of the risk of distal sealing-related endoleaks. No robust evidence exists in the published literature, and therefore we sought to evaluate the performance of IBDs in the presence of HAs within a multicenter registry of nine vascular centers. Methods: Clinical and radiographic information of 804 patients with AIAs treated by IBDs was retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using prearranged, defined, and documented protocols. The treatment period was between January 2005 and April 2017. Results: HA was present in 315 (32.6%) of the overall 910 deployed IBDs. Mean radiologic follow-up was 32 months. The incidence of incomplete aneurysm exclusion and type I endoleak was 3% in the HA group vs 0.7% in the non-HA group (P =.019). The 5-year freedom from IBD-related type I endoleak was 93% vs 98% in the HA group vs the non-HA group, respectively (P =.006). Subgroup analysis of the HA group revealed that use of a single distal bridging stent graft vs multiple bridging devices led to higher rate of type I endoleak (9.6% vs 2.8%; P =.031), branch occlusions (8.3% vs 0.9%; P =.009), and buttock claudication (7.6% vs 1.9%; P =.038). Conclusions: This series of AIAs with HAs is the largest reported. It shows that HAs coexisting with AIAs, when treated with IBDs, have significantly worse outcomes. Lengthening the distal landing zone with more than one bridging stent graft into the distal healthy hypogastric artery or one of its main branches improves outcomes.
Coexisting hypogastric aneurysms worsen the outcomes of endovascular treatment by the iliac branch devices within the pELVIS Registry
Cao, Piergiorgio;Ferrer, Ciro;Verzini, Fabio;Simonte, Gioele;
2019
Abstract
Objective: Hypogastric aneurysms (HAs) frequently coexist with aortoiliac aneurysms (AIAs). However, the presence of an HA is a contraindication to endovascular aneurysm treatment by iliac branch devices (IBDs) because of the risk of distal sealing-related endoleaks. No robust evidence exists in the published literature, and therefore we sought to evaluate the performance of IBDs in the presence of HAs within a multicenter registry of nine vascular centers. Methods: Clinical and radiographic information of 804 patients with AIAs treated by IBDs was retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using prearranged, defined, and documented protocols. The treatment period was between January 2005 and April 2017. Results: HA was present in 315 (32.6%) of the overall 910 deployed IBDs. Mean radiologic follow-up was 32 months. The incidence of incomplete aneurysm exclusion and type I endoleak was 3% in the HA group vs 0.7% in the non-HA group (P =.019). The 5-year freedom from IBD-related type I endoleak was 93% vs 98% in the HA group vs the non-HA group, respectively (P =.006). Subgroup analysis of the HA group revealed that use of a single distal bridging stent graft vs multiple bridging devices led to higher rate of type I endoleak (9.6% vs 2.8%; P =.031), branch occlusions (8.3% vs 0.9%; P =.009), and buttock claudication (7.6% vs 1.9%; P =.038). Conclusions: This series of AIAs with HAs is the largest reported. It shows that HAs coexisting with AIAs, when treated with IBDs, have significantly worse outcomes. Lengthening the distal landing zone with more than one bridging stent graft into the distal healthy hypogastric artery or one of its main branches improves outcomes.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
