Purpose: To compare the outcomes of iliac branch devices (IBD) used in combination with standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs with fenestrated/branched EVAR (f/bEVAR) to treat complex aortoiliac aneurysms. Materials and Methods: The pELVIS Registry database containing the outcomes of IBD use at 8 European centers was interrogated to identify all IBD procedures that were combined with either standard EVAR or f/bEVAR. Among 669 patients extracted from the database, 629 (mean age 72.1±8.8 years; 597 men) had received an IBD combined with standard EVAR vs 40 (mean age 71.1±8.0 years; 40 men) who underwent f/bEVAR with an IBD. The mean aortic aneurysm diameters were 46.4±13.3 mm in the f/bEVAR patients vs 45.0±15.5 mm in the standard EVAR cases. The groups were similar in terms of baseline clinical characteristics and aneurysm morphology. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare patient survival, IBD occlusion, type III endoleak, and aneurysm-related reinterventions in follow-up. The estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Technical success was 100% in the f/bEVAR+IBD group and 99% in the EVAR+IBD group (p=0.85). The 30-day mortality was 0% vs 0.5%, respectively (p=0.66), while the 30-day reintervention rates were 7.5% vs 4.1% (p=0.31). The mean follow-up was 32.1±21.3 months for f/bEVAR+IBD patients (n=30) and 35.5±26.8 months for EVAR+IBD patients (n=571; p=0.41). The 12-month survival estimates were 93.4% (95% CI 93.2% to 93.6%) in the EVAR+IBD group vs 93.6% (95% CI 93.3% to 93.9%) for the f/bEVAR+IBD group (p=0.93). There were no occlusions or type III endoleaks in the f/bEVAR+IBD group at 12 months, while the estimates for freedom from occlusion and from type III endoleak in the EVAR+IBD group were 97% (95% CI 96.8% to 97.2%) and 98.5% (95% CI 98.4% to 98.6%), respectively. The 12-month estimates for freedom for aneurysm-related reintervention were 93% (95% CI 92.7% to 93.3%) in the EVAR+IBD group vs 86.4% (95% CI 85.9% to 86.9%) in the f/bEVAR+IBD patients (p=0.046). Conclusion: Treatment of complex aortoiliac disease with f/bEVAR+IBD can achieve equally good early and 1-year outcomes compared to treatment with IBDs and standard bifurcated stent-grafts, except for a somewhat higher reintervention rate in f/bEVAR patients.
Iliac Branch Devices With Standard vs Fenestrated/Branched Stent-Grafts: Does Aneurysm Complexity Produce Worse Outcomes? Insights From the pELVIS Registry / Spanos K., Kolbel T., Scheerbaum M., Donas K.P., Austermann M., Rohlffs F., Verzini F., Tsilimparis N., Bosiers M., Inchingolo M., Torsello G., Weiss K., Branzan D., Scheinert D., Schmidt A., Haulon S., Pitoulias G.A., Parlani G., Simonte G., Dorigo W., et al.. - In: JOURNAL OF ENDOVASCULAR THERAPY. - ISSN 1526-6028. - ELETTRONICO. - 27:(2020), pp. 910-916-916. [10.1177/1526602820944611]
Iliac Branch Devices With Standard vs Fenestrated/Branched Stent-Grafts: Does Aneurysm Complexity Produce Worse Outcomes? Insights From the pELVIS Registry
Dorigo W.;Fargion A.;Pratesi C.;
2020
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of iliac branch devices (IBD) used in combination with standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs with fenestrated/branched EVAR (f/bEVAR) to treat complex aortoiliac aneurysms. Materials and Methods: The pELVIS Registry database containing the outcomes of IBD use at 8 European centers was interrogated to identify all IBD procedures that were combined with either standard EVAR or f/bEVAR. Among 669 patients extracted from the database, 629 (mean age 72.1±8.8 years; 597 men) had received an IBD combined with standard EVAR vs 40 (mean age 71.1±8.0 years; 40 men) who underwent f/bEVAR with an IBD. The mean aortic aneurysm diameters were 46.4±13.3 mm in the f/bEVAR patients vs 45.0±15.5 mm in the standard EVAR cases. The groups were similar in terms of baseline clinical characteristics and aneurysm morphology. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare patient survival, IBD occlusion, type III endoleak, and aneurysm-related reinterventions in follow-up. The estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Technical success was 100% in the f/bEVAR+IBD group and 99% in the EVAR+IBD group (p=0.85). The 30-day mortality was 0% vs 0.5%, respectively (p=0.66), while the 30-day reintervention rates were 7.5% vs 4.1% (p=0.31). The mean follow-up was 32.1±21.3 months for f/bEVAR+IBD patients (n=30) and 35.5±26.8 months for EVAR+IBD patients (n=571; p=0.41). The 12-month survival estimates were 93.4% (95% CI 93.2% to 93.6%) in the EVAR+IBD group vs 93.6% (95% CI 93.3% to 93.9%) for the f/bEVAR+IBD group (p=0.93). There were no occlusions or type III endoleaks in the f/bEVAR+IBD group at 12 months, while the estimates for freedom from occlusion and from type III endoleak in the EVAR+IBD group were 97% (95% CI 96.8% to 97.2%) and 98.5% (95% CI 98.4% to 98.6%), respectively. The 12-month estimates for freedom for aneurysm-related reintervention were 93% (95% CI 92.7% to 93.3%) in the EVAR+IBD group vs 86.4% (95% CI 85.9% to 86.9%) in the f/bEVAR+IBD patients (p=0.046). Conclusion: Treatment of complex aortoiliac disease with f/bEVAR+IBD can achieve equally good early and 1-year outcomes compared to treatment with IBDs and standard bifurcated stent-grafts, except for a somewhat higher reintervention rate in f/bEVAR patients.
I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
