Iliac branch device to treat type Ib endoleak with a brachial access or an "up-and-over" transfemoral technique.

Objective: In the present study, we reviewed the results of secondary iliac branch device (IBD) implantation for patients with a type Ib endoleak after prior fenestrated and/or branched (F/B) or infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) using either brachial access or an "up-and-over" transfemoral technique.
Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis between January 2016 and October 2021 of consecutive patients who had undergone IBD to correct a type Ib endoleak after prior EVAR or F/B-EVAR. The groups were defined by arterial access, which was either brachial (group 1) or transfemoral (group 2). All implanted IBDs had been manufactured by Cook Medical, Inc (Bloomington, IN). The demographics, anatomic features, technical success, and 30-day major adverse events were recorded in accordance with the current Society for Vascular Surgery standards. The survival curves using the Kaplan-Meier method were calculated. Branch instability was a composite end point of any internal iliac artery (IIA) branch-related complication or reintervention indicated to treat endoleak, kink, disconnection, stenosis, occlusion, or rupture.
Results: Overall, 28 patients (93% male; median age, 74 years), who had received 32 IBDs, were included, with 14 patients in each group. The prior endovascular aortic repairs included 23 cases of EVAR and 5 cases of F/B-EVAR, with an interval from the initial repair of 58 months (interquartile range [IQR], 48-70 months). The median pre-IBD maximal aneurysm diameter was 63.5 mm (IQR, 59.0-78.0 mm). The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for pulmonary status. All procedures were performed in a hybrid operative room. The median total operating time, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product was 120 minutes (IQR, 86-167 minutes), 23 minutes (IQR, 15-32 minutes), and 54 Gyċcm ² (IQR, 40-62 Gyċcm ² ), respectively. The total operating time was shorter for group 2 (P = .006). The technical success rate was 100%, and no early deaths occurred. One 30-day major adverse event, medically treated colonic ischemia, had occurred in one patient in group 2. Aortic-related secondary interventions had been required for seven patients (five in group 1 and two in group 2), including three cases of surgical explantation. The median follow-up was 31 months (IQR, 24-42 months) and 6 months (IQR, 3-10 months) for groups 1 and 2, respectively. For group 1, the 2-year freedom from aortic-related secondary intervention and IIA branch instability was 84.6% (IQR, 67.1%-100%) and 92.3% (IQR, 78.9%-100%), respectively. For group 2, the 6-month freedom from aortic-related secondary intervention and IIA branch instability was 87.5% (IQR, 67.3%-100%) and 91.7% (IQR, 77.3%-100%), respectively.
Conclusions: The results from the present study have shown that secondary implantation of an IBD to correct a distal type I endoleak from a previous aortic stent graft is safe with a high technical success rate. The "up-and-over" technique can be considered an alternative to brachial access for patients with suitable anatomy.
(Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)