IBD/IBE VS. HYPOGASTRIC ARTERY EMBOLIZATION — HOW TO CHOOSE AND WHAT’S THE OUTCOME?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48750/acv.254Keywords:
Aorto-Iliac Aneurysm, Hypogastric Artery Embolization, Hypogastric Artery Preservation, Iliac Branch Device (IDB), Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE)Abstract
Introduction: There is no standard anatomic or clinical criteria guiding treatment modalities of iliac aneurysms. The main endovascular options are hypogastric artery endovascular exclusion or hypogastric preservation with iliac branch devices (IBD) or iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE). However, outcomes of each technique are not clear yet.
Methods: An observational retrospective study was designed. Patients who underwent EVAR + IBD/IBE (Group 1) or EVAR + hypogastric artery embolization (Group 2) on a tertiary hospital, from January 2016 to April 2019, were included. Data were collected from medical records. Primary endpoint was procedure-related complications (intra-operative complications; type 1 and 3 endoleaks; EVAR limb occlusions; pelvic, intestinal and spinal cord ischemia; gluteal claudication; procedure-related mortality). Secondary endpoints were hospitalization duration, type 2 endoleaks, freedom from reintervention and global survival.
Results: 30 patients were included. 19 underwent elective IBD/IBE due to asymptomatic aneurysm; 11 underwent hypogastric artery embolization, 5 of them in emergency. Mean age was lower in Group 1 (69,79 ±8,30 years vs. 75,73±6,15 years in Group 2; p=0,049). Technical success was 100%. There was no significant difference in procedure-related complications (Group 1: 21%; Group 2: 36%; p=0,417); we found similar rates of mortality and EVAR limb occlusions. The difference in incidence of gluteal claudication was non-significant (30% in Group 2 vs. 7% in Group 1; p=0,267). Freedom from reintervention was similar in both groups (Group 1: 84%, Group 2: 83%; p=0,827). Global survival at two years was similar (Group 1: 89,5±0,7%; Group 2: 87,5±1,2%; p=0,935).
Conclusion: Both procedures are safe and effective and, nowadays, its individualized selection is mostly determined by procedure cost and urgency.
Downloads
References
(2) Parlani G, Zannetti S, Verzini F et al., Does the presence of an iliac aneurysm affect outcome of endoluminal AAA repair? An analysis of 336 cases. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002; 24:134-8;
(3) Simonte G, Parlani G, Farchioni L et al. Lesson Learned with the Use of Iliac Branch Devices: Single Centre 10 Year Experience in 157 Consecutive Procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017; 54: 95e103;
(4) Bosanquet DC, Wilcox C, Whitehurstet L et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effect of Internal Iliac Artery Exclusion for Patients Undergoing EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017; 53: 534e548;
(5) Kouvelos GN, Katsargyris A, Antoniou GA et al. Outcome after Interruption or Preservation of Internal Iliac Artery Flow During Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aorto-iliac Aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016; 52: 621e634;
(6) Li Y, Hu Z, Zhang J et al. Iliac Aneurysms Treated with Endovascular Iliac Branch Device: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019; 56: 303–316;
(7) Naughton PA, Park MS, Kheirelseid EAH et al. A comparative study of the bell-bottom technique vs hypogastric exclusion for the treatment of aneurysmal extension to the iliac bifurcation. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2012; 956-962;
(8) Wanhainen A, Verzini F, Van Herzeele I et al. European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-iliac Artery Aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019; 57: 8e93.
