Vascular Center, Department of Thoracic Surgery and Vascular Diseases, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Division of Vascular Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
J Endovasc Ther. 2024 Oct;31(5):995-1004. doi: 10.1177/15266028221149922. Epub 2023 Jan 22.
To evaluate the outcomes of preserving the internal iliac artery (IIA) with iliac branched devices (IBDs) during acute endovascular repair of ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms.
This is a multicenter retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing acute endovascular repair of ruptured aortoiliac aneurysm with an IBD at 8 aortic centers between December 2012 and June 2020. A control group was used where the IIA was intentionally occluded from the same study period. The main outcome measures were 30-day mortality, major adverse events, technical success, and clinical success. Secondary outcomes were buttock claudication, primary patency, primary-assisted and secondary patency of the IBD, occurrence of endoleak types I/III, and reintervention. Values are presented as numbers and percentages or interquartile range in parenthesis.
Forty-eight patients were included in the study: 24 with IBD and 24 with IIA occlusion. There was no difference in demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent. Twenty (83%) of them were hemodynamically stable during the procedure as opposed to 14 (58%, p=.23) with the IIA occlusion. Technical success was achieved in all cases with a procedure time of 180 (133-254) minutes, 45 (23-65) of which were from IBD. There were 2 (8%) deaths during the first 30 days and 2 (8%) major complications unrelated to the IBD, whereas in the IIA occlusion, the figures were 10 (42%) and 7 (29%), respectively. No patient in the IBD group developed buttock claudication compared to 8 (57%, p<.0001) in the IIA occlusion group; 1 (4%) patient developed bowel ischemia on both groups, with 1 in the IIA occlusion group needing resection. The median follow-up duration was 17 months (interquartile range 2-39) for the IBD group, with a primary patency of 60±14% at 3 years that went up to 92±8% with reinterventions (8 reinterventions in 6 patients). When the first 90 days were disregarded, there were no differences in survival between the groups.
IBD is a valid alternative for maintaining the pelvic circulation for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms. The technical success and midterm outcomes are very satisfactory but require patient selection particularly regarding hemodynamic stability. The reintervention rate is considerable, mandating continuous follow-up.
This multicenter study demonstrates that ruptured aortoiliac aneurysms do not necessarily require mandatory occlusion of hypogastric arteries. Iliac branch devices are shown to be a valid alternative in highly selected cases, with good midterm results, even if reinterventions are required in a significant proportion of patients.
评估在急性血管内修复破裂性腹主动脉瘤时使用髂支装置(IBD)保留髂内动脉(IIA)的结果。
这是一项多中心回顾性研究,纳入了 2012 年 12 月至 2020 年 6 月期间 8 个主动脉中心连续接受急性血管内修复破裂性腹主动脉瘤并使用 IBD 的所有患者。同时使用 IIA 被故意阻断的患者作为对照。主要观察指标为 30 天死亡率、主要不良事件、技术成功率和临床成功率。次要结局包括臀肌跛行、主通畅、IBD 的原发性辅助通畅和继发性通畅、内漏类型 I/III 的发生以及再次干预。数值以数字和百分比或括号内的四分位距表示。
共纳入 48 例患者:24 例使用 IBD,24 例使用 IIA 阻断。两组在人口统计学、心血管危险因素和动脉瘤程度方面无差异。20 例(83%)患者在手术过程中血流动力学稳定,而 14 例(58%,p=.23)使用 IIA 阻断的患者血流动力学不稳定。所有病例均成功完成手术,手术时间为 180(133-254)分钟,其中 45(23-65)分钟来自 IBD。30 天内有 2 例(8%)死亡和 2 例(8%)与 IBD 无关的主要并发症,而在 IIA 阻断组,这一数字分别为 10 例(42%)和 7 例(29%)。与 IIA 阻断组相比,IBD 组无臀肌跛行患者(57%,p<.0001);两组均有 1 例(4%)患者发生肠缺血,其中 IIA 阻断组 1 例需要切除。IBD 组的中位随访时间为 17 个月(四分位距 2-39),3 年时主通畅率为 60±14%,再干预后上升至 92±8%(6 例患者中有 8 例再干预)。如果忽略前 90 天,两组的生存率没有差异。
IBD 是血管内修复破裂性腹主动脉瘤时维持盆腔循环的有效替代方法。技术成功率和中期结果非常令人满意,但需要进行患者选择,特别是要考虑血流动力学稳定性。再干预率相当高,需要持续随访。
这项多中心研究表明,破裂性腹主动脉瘤不一定需要强制性阻断髂内动脉。在高度选择的病例中,IBD 显示出是一种有效的替代方法,即使在相当一部分患者中需要再次干预,也能获得良好的中期结果。