Search

Aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) can occur from either chronic, progressive atherosclerotic disease, acute on chronic thrombosis or acute arterial embolism, and can all result in limb ischemia. Bypass surgery had long been the gold standard for treatment for AIOD, however, with advances in endovascular techniques, minimally invasive treatment of aortoiliac lesions has become the first line choice of management in many cases. Herein, we describe a case of utilizing the Inari ClotTriever to perform aortoiliac mechanical thrombectomy and the ARTIX thrombectomy system to perform an embolectomy the superficial femoral artery, highlighting new therapies to treat AIOD., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: The aim of this multicentric registry was to assess the outcomes of "anteRior versus posteRior divisional bRanches Of the hYpogastric artery as distAl landing zone for iLiac branch devices (R3OYAL).", Methods: The main exposure of interest for the purpose of this study was the internal iliac artery (IIA) divisional branch (anterior vs posterior) that was used as distal landing zone. Early endpoints included technical success and adverse events. Late endpoints included survival, primary/secondary IIA patency, and IIA branch instability., Results: A total of 171 patients were included in the study, of which 50 received bilateral implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs). This resulted in a total of 221 incorporated IIAs included in the final analysis, of which 40 were anterior divisional branches and 181 were posterior divisional branches. Technical success was high in both groups (anterior division: 98% vs posterior division: 100%, P = .18). Occurrence of any adverse event was noted in 14% of patients in both groups ( P = 1.0). The overall rate of freedom from the composite IBD branch instability did not show significant differences between patients receiving distal landing in the anterior or posterior division of the IIA at 3 years (79% vs 87%, log-rank test = .215). The 3-year estimates of IBD patency were significantly lower in patients who received distal landing in the anterior divisional branch than those who received distal landing in the posterior divisional branch (primary patency: 81% vs 96%, log-rank test = .009; secondary patency: 81% vs 97%, log-rank test < .001)., Conclusions: The use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the IIA as distal landing zone for IBD implantation shows comparable profiles in terms of immediate technical success, perioperative safety, and side-branch instability up to 3 years. However, IBD patency at 3 years was higher when the distal landing zone was achieved within the posterior divisional branch of the IIA., Clinical Impact: The results from this large multicentric registry confirm that use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zone for implantation of iliac branch devices (IBD) shows comparable profiles of safety and feasibility, thereby allowing to extend the indications for endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Although mid-term rates of device durability and branch instability seem to be similar, the rates of primary and secondary IBD patency at three years was favored when the distal landing zone was achieved in the posterior divisional branch of the IIA., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: This UK multicenter study aims to report early- and medium-term results following covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB) for the treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) or intermittent claudication (IC)., Materials and Methods: Retrospective case analysis was performed of patients who underwent CERAB between November 1, 2012 and March 31, 2020 in 6 centers across the United Kingdom. Anatomical data, including degree of plaque calcification, were assessed using preoperative imaging. Outcome measures included mortality, perioperative complications, target lesion reintervention (TLR), and major limb amputation. Primary, assisted primary, and secondary patencies were calculated at set intervals., Results: A total of 116 patients underwent CERAB over the study period for the following reasons [48% presenting with CLTI (Rutherford 4-6) and 52% with IC (Rutherford 1-3)]; 82% presented had Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) D AIOD disease. Median age was 65 years (range 42-90 years); 76% of the cohort were male. Severely calcified aortic and iliac lesions were noted in 90% and 80% of patients, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 18 months (range 1-91 months), 2 (1.7%) patients were lost to follow up. In total 5, (4.3%) patients died and 2 (1.7%) had a major amputation. Endovascular TLR was required in 14 (12.1%) patients at last follow up. Surgical TLR was performed in 4 (3.4%) patients at last follow-up. Seven (6%) patients developed an aortic/iliac stent occlusion at last follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) freedom from TLR at 1 year was 94% and KM 1-year primary patency, assisted primary patency, and secondary patency were 88%, 94%, and 98% respectively. Subanalysis found the following features were associated with need for TLR; TASC D disease (OR = 2.45, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.71), severe aortic calcification (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.20), and presence of tissue loss at baseline (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.63)., Conclusion: Perioperative (<30 days) and medium-term morbidity, mortality, and patency rates in this pragmatic cohort of patients with severe AIOD lesions show that CERAB is a valid revascularization option. A direct comparison with surgical treatments for AIOD in a randomized controlled trial is justified.

Objective: To evaluate early and follow-up outcomes following bilateral use of iliac branch devices (IBD) for aortoiliac endografting and assess the impact of center volume. We used data from the pELVIS international multicentric registry., Methods: For the purpose of this study, only those patients receiving concomitant bilateral IBD implantation were analyzed. To assess the impact that procedural volume of bilateral IBD implantation could have on early and follow-up outcomes, participating institutions were classified as Site(s) A if they had performed >10 and/or >20% concomitant bilateral IBD procedure, otherwise they were classified as Site(s) B. Endpoints of the analysis included early (ie, 30-day) mortality and morbidity, as well as all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality during follow-up. Additional endpoints that were evaluated included IBD-related reinterventions, IBD occlusion or stenosis requiring reintervention (ie, loss of primary patency), and IBD-related type I endoleak., Results: Overall, 96 patients received bilateral IBD implantation (out of 910 procedures collected in the whole pELVIS cohort), of whom 65 were treated at Site A (ie, Group A) and 31 were treated at Site(s) B (ie, Group B). In total, only 1 death occurred within 30 days from bilateral IBD implantation, and 9 patients experienced at least 1 major complication without any significant difference between subjects in Group A versus those in Group B (10.8% vs 6.5%, p=0.714). In the overall cohort, the 2-year freedom from IBD-related type I endoleaks and IBD primary patency were 96% and 92%, respectively; no significant differences were seen in those rates between Group A or Group B (95% vs 100%, p=0.335; 93% vs 88%, p=0.470). Freedom from any IBD-related reinterventions was 83% at 2 years, with similar rates between study groups (85% vs 83%, p=0.904)., Conclusions: Within the pELVIS registry, concomitant bilateral IBD implantation is a safe and feasible technique for management of aortoiliac aneurysms in patients with suitable anatomy. Despite increased technical complexity, effectiveness of the repair is satisfactory with low rates of IBD-related adverse events at mid-term follow-up. Procedural volume does not seem to affect technical or clinical outcomes after bilateral use of IBD, which remains a favorable treatment option in selected patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.