Overtaking technical and anatomical challenges of preservation in the treatment
of iliac aneurysmal disease
G Pratesi, MD
Vascular SurgeryIRCCS Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa
Policlinico Tor Vergata, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”
Disclosure
Speaker name:
Giovanni Pratesi
I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report:
Consulting: Abbott, Cook, Cordis, Medtronic, WL Gore & Associates
Employment in industry
Stockholder of a healthcare company
Owner of a healthcare company
Other(s)
I do not have any potential conflict of interest
✓
Chaikof EL et al., J Vasc Surg 2018
• Tortuous iliac anatomy
• Aneurysmal involvement of hypogastric artery
• “Challenging” iliac bifurcation (diameter, take off angulation)
• Small access vessels
Endovascular preservation of hypogastric artery:technical and anatomical challenges
650 iliac branch in 575 Pts between 2005 and 2015; mean follow-up 32.6±9.9
• 621 Cook ZBIS, 29 Gore IBE• Overall postop reintervention rate 8.9%
- 4.6% EIA or CIA occlusion- 4.3% type I EL
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2013
85 EVAR procedures with IBD in 81 pts between 2007 and 2012
IBD-related reintervention OR p
Ectatic IAA > 10 mm 3.4 .001
BE vs SE stent 2.5 .2
39 vs 59 mm stent .9 .78
ZBIS-45 vs ZBIS-61 1.2 .18
ZBIS-10 vs ZBIS-12 1 .16
Distal sealing zone in iliac branch:need for a healthy hypogastric artery
Donas KP et al., J Vasc Surg 2018
HA group(n=310)
Non HA group(n=595)
p
IBD-related type I EL 3% .7% .019
Buttock claudication 2.2% 5.3% .019
IBD-related migration 0.2% 1.9% <.001
5-year freedom from IBD-related type I EL 93% 98% .006
Overtaking technical and anatomical challenges with IBD: advanced imaging techniques
GORE® EXCLUDER® Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis
Overtaking technical and anatomical challengeswith IBD: more conformable devices
Della Schiava N et al., Ann Vasc Surg 2016
• Monocentric retrospective therapeutic study including 13 IBE and 9 ZBIS
• Three indices of tortuosity measured with EndoSize: common iliac artery (CIA), pelvic artery index (PAI), and the double iliac sign (DIS)
• The centerline lengths of the iliac axis and the IIA were measured by 2 different operators as a blind fashion
IBE, more conformable with the anatomy of the patient, could decrease the incidence of graft related complication due to
anatomical constraints
Technical and anatomical challenges in IBD: external iliac tortuosity
Hypogastric preservation:IBE in external iliac tortuosity
IBE in external iliac tortuosity:expanding iliac branch applicability
Technical and anatomical challenges in IBD: hypogastric aneurysm
• MV, male, 65 yrs• Bilateral CIAA (60 mm
Rt side; 45 mm Lt side)
• Bilateral IIAA (37 mm Rt side; 25 mm Lt side)
IBE in Hypogastric aneurysm:anterior branch embolization +
posterior branch stenting
IBE in hypogastric aneurysm:expanding iliac branch applicability
Technical and anatomical challenges in IBD: Cook’s ZBIS vs Gore’s IBE
• Cook IBD:– Longitudinal indipendent stainless
steel stent
– Different proximal lengths, with longer overlapping zones
– Need for an IIA mating stent
• Gore IBE:– Sinusoidal nitinol stent design
– Increased conformability
– Dedicated IIA component
Study Group
180 iliac branched devicesimplanted betweenJanuary 2007 and December 2017
• 123 Cook ZBIS (Group 1)
• 57 Gore IBE (Group 2)
Comparison of the two groups was performed on the
basis of a propensity score matching (1:1) analysis
Demographics and baseline characteristicsMatched Groups: 35 ZBIS vs 35 IBE
Clinical Features Group 1 (ZBIS; n=35) Group 2 (IBE; n=35) p
Mean age 72.9 ± 8.3 70.1 ± 8.7 .21
Male sex 35 (100%) 35 (100%) 1
Arterial hypertension 26 (74.3%) 30 (85.7%) .20
Hyperlipidemia 14 (40%) 16 (45.7%) .41
Diabetes mellitus 3 (8.6%) 2 (5.7%) .50
CAD 9 (25.7%) 9 (25.7%) 1
COPD 21 (60%) 21 (60%) 1
CKD 2 (5.7%) 2 (5.7%) 1
PAOD 1 (1.7%) 0 (-) .50
Anatomical Features Group 1 (ZBIS; n=35) Group 2 (IBE; n=35) p
Proximal neck diameter 23.3 ± 2.4 mm 23.1 ± 2.5 mm .78
Proximal neck lenght 25.1 ± 17.5 mm 26.1 ± 13.5 mm .81
Aortic diameter 43.3 ± 15.6 mm 48.9 ± 17 mm .18
Right CIA diameter 30.6 ± 11.5 mm 35.1 ± 15.1 mm .19
Left CIA diameter 27.8 ± 10.4 mm 30.1 ± 14.8 mm .49
CIA diameter on branched side 34.5 ± 9.1 mm 39.8 ± 14.7 mm .11
IIA diameter on branched side 12.7± 6.1 mm 10.5 ± 5.6 mm .27
Perioperative Outcomes
Perioperative OutcomesGroup 1
(ZBIS; n=35)
Group 2
(IBE; n=35)p
Technical success 35 (100%) 35 (100%) 1
IBD - occlusion 1 (2.8%) (-) .49
IBD - Type I/III endoleak (-) (-) 1
Adjunctive procedures 35 (28.2%) 240 (21.7%) .10
Conversion (-) (-) 1
Mortality (-) (-) 1
Outcomes at Follow-up
Outcomes at Follow-upGroup 1
(ZBIS; n=35)
Group 2
(IBE; n=35)p
Mortality 3 (8.6%) 4 (11.4%) .69
Aneurysm-related mortality 2 (5.7%) 1 (2.8%) .67
IBD occlusion 0 (-) 0 (-) 1
IBD-type I endoleak 1 (2.8%) 1 (2.8%) 1
IBD-type III endoleak 1 (2.8%) 1 (2.8%) 1
IBD-related reinterventions 2 (5.7%) 1 (2.8%) .57
Migration 1 (2.8%) 0 (-) .49
Bridging stent occlusion 0 (-) 0 (-) 1
Conversion to open surgery 2 (5.7%) 0 (-) .49
Mean follow-up was 46.7 months in group 1 (SD ± 36.3), 20.8 months in group 2 (SD ± 15.9); p <.001
Outcomes at Follow-up
86.8
%
97.1
%
p=.34, log-rank 0.9
93.3
%
97.1
%
p=.81, log-rank 0.5
Conclusions
• Hypogastric preservation with Iliac branch is effective and mandatory whenever anatomically feasible
• GORE® EXCLUDER® Iliac Branch Endograft offers high conformability in challenging anatomies (stenosis, tortuousity, hypogastric aneurysm)
• Tailored iliac branch selection is crucial in overtaking technical and anatomical challenges of hypogastric preservation in the treatment of iliac aneurysmal disease
Overtaking technical and anatomicalchallenges with IBD: tailored device selection
Overtaking technical and anatomical challenges of preservation in the treatment
of iliac aneurysmal disease
G Pratesi, MD
Vascular SurgeryIRCCS Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa
Policlinico Tor Vergata, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”