Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Patients with Iliac Aneurysms Treated by Open Surgery or Endovascular Repair with Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis

Bernardo C. Mendes, Gustavo Oderich, Giuliano A. Sandri, Jill K. Johnstone, F. Shuja, M. Kalra, Thomas C. Bower, Randall R De Martino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Treatment of common and internal iliac aneurysms is usually done by open surgery. A novel iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) is commercially available with encouraging initial results. Our objective is to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with iliac aneurysms treated by open surgery (OS) versus endovascular repair with IBE. Methods: The study was a retrospective, single-center review of patients who were treated for aortoiliac or isolated common and/or internal iliac artery aneurysms from 2014 to 2017. Patients with connective tissue disorders, infected grafts, or thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, length of hospital (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, estimated blood loss, need for red blood cell transfusion (RBC), and perioperative reinterventions. Results: Sixty-seven patients (96% male) were treated with OS (n = 25, mean age 68 ± 8 years) or IBE (n = 42, mean age 73 ± 8 years; P = 0.02) with 1 symptomatic patient in each group. Perioperative mortality occurred in 1 patient in the OS group (4%), with no mortality in the IBE group (P = 0.37) Total LOS and ICU stay was higher for OS compared to IBE (total stay 7.5 ± 3.4 vs. 1.7 ± 1.4 days for IBE, P < 0.0001 and ICU LOS 3.3 ± 2.1 vs. 0.1 ± 0.4 days, P < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss was higher for patients undergoing OS (4,732 ± 2,540 mL) compared to patients treated with IBE (263 ± 451 mL, P < 0.0001), resulting in higher RBC transfusion requirements (1.5 ± 2.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.8 units, P = 0.001). Five patients in the OS group had early procedure-related reinterventions, while 2 patients in the IBE group required reintervention for access site complications (20% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.09). Conclusions: Endovascular repair of iliac aneurysms with IBE is feasible and is associated with lower blood loss, LOS and ICU stay, and had lower RBC transfusion requirements. Cost analysis and long-term follow-up will be needed to define the value of this modality for iliac artery aneurysm repair.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAnnals of Vascular Surgery
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Iliac Aneurysm
Erythrocyte Transfusion
Intensive Care Units
Iliac Artery
Mortality
Hospital Mortality
Connective Tissue
Aneurysm

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Patients with Iliac Aneurysms Treated by Open Surgery or Endovascular Repair with Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis. / Mendes, Bernardo C.; Oderich, Gustavo; Sandri, Giuliano A.; Johnstone, Jill K.; Shuja, F.; Kalra, M.; Bower, Thomas C.; De Martino, Randall R.

In: Annals of Vascular Surgery, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4b4b8e532d8040bbb18ea1510eab8f82,
title = "Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Patients with Iliac Aneurysms Treated by Open Surgery or Endovascular Repair with Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis",
abstract = "Background: Treatment of common and internal iliac aneurysms is usually done by open surgery. A novel iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) is commercially available with encouraging initial results. Our objective is to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with iliac aneurysms treated by open surgery (OS) versus endovascular repair with IBE. Methods: The study was a retrospective, single-center review of patients who were treated for aortoiliac or isolated common and/or internal iliac artery aneurysms from 2014 to 2017. Patients with connective tissue disorders, infected grafts, or thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, length of hospital (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, estimated blood loss, need for red blood cell transfusion (RBC), and perioperative reinterventions. Results: Sixty-seven patients (96{\%} male) were treated with OS (n = 25, mean age 68 ± 8 years) or IBE (n = 42, mean age 73 ± 8 years; P = 0.02) with 1 symptomatic patient in each group. Perioperative mortality occurred in 1 patient in the OS group (4{\%}), with no mortality in the IBE group (P = 0.37) Total LOS and ICU stay was higher for OS compared to IBE (total stay 7.5 ± 3.4 vs. 1.7 ± 1.4 days for IBE, P < 0.0001 and ICU LOS 3.3 ± 2.1 vs. 0.1 ± 0.4 days, P < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss was higher for patients undergoing OS (4,732 ± 2,540 mL) compared to patients treated with IBE (263 ± 451 mL, P < 0.0001), resulting in higher RBC transfusion requirements (1.5 ± 2.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.8 units, P = 0.001). Five patients in the OS group had early procedure-related reinterventions, while 2 patients in the IBE group required reintervention for access site complications (20{\%} vs. 4.7{\%}, P = 0.09). Conclusions: Endovascular repair of iliac aneurysms with IBE is feasible and is associated with lower blood loss, LOS and ICU stay, and had lower RBC transfusion requirements. Cost analysis and long-term follow-up will be needed to define the value of this modality for iliac artery aneurysm repair.",
author = "Mendes, {Bernardo C.} and Gustavo Oderich and Sandri, {Giuliano A.} and Johnstone, {Jill K.} and F. Shuja and M. Kalra and Bower, {Thomas C.} and {De Martino}, {Randall R}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.avsg.2019.05.003",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Annals of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0890-5096",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Patients with Iliac Aneurysms Treated by Open Surgery or Endovascular Repair with Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis

AU - Mendes, Bernardo C.

AU - Oderich, Gustavo

AU - Sandri, Giuliano A.

AU - Johnstone, Jill K.

AU - Shuja, F.

AU - Kalra, M.

AU - Bower, Thomas C.

AU - De Martino, Randall R

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Treatment of common and internal iliac aneurysms is usually done by open surgery. A novel iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) is commercially available with encouraging initial results. Our objective is to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with iliac aneurysms treated by open surgery (OS) versus endovascular repair with IBE. Methods: The study was a retrospective, single-center review of patients who were treated for aortoiliac or isolated common and/or internal iliac artery aneurysms from 2014 to 2017. Patients with connective tissue disorders, infected grafts, or thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, length of hospital (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, estimated blood loss, need for red blood cell transfusion (RBC), and perioperative reinterventions. Results: Sixty-seven patients (96% male) were treated with OS (n = 25, mean age 68 ± 8 years) or IBE (n = 42, mean age 73 ± 8 years; P = 0.02) with 1 symptomatic patient in each group. Perioperative mortality occurred in 1 patient in the OS group (4%), with no mortality in the IBE group (P = 0.37) Total LOS and ICU stay was higher for OS compared to IBE (total stay 7.5 ± 3.4 vs. 1.7 ± 1.4 days for IBE, P < 0.0001 and ICU LOS 3.3 ± 2.1 vs. 0.1 ± 0.4 days, P < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss was higher for patients undergoing OS (4,732 ± 2,540 mL) compared to patients treated with IBE (263 ± 451 mL, P < 0.0001), resulting in higher RBC transfusion requirements (1.5 ± 2.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.8 units, P = 0.001). Five patients in the OS group had early procedure-related reinterventions, while 2 patients in the IBE group required reintervention for access site complications (20% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.09). Conclusions: Endovascular repair of iliac aneurysms with IBE is feasible and is associated with lower blood loss, LOS and ICU stay, and had lower RBC transfusion requirements. Cost analysis and long-term follow-up will be needed to define the value of this modality for iliac artery aneurysm repair.

AB - Background: Treatment of common and internal iliac aneurysms is usually done by open surgery. A novel iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE) is commercially available with encouraging initial results. Our objective is to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with iliac aneurysms treated by open surgery (OS) versus endovascular repair with IBE. Methods: The study was a retrospective, single-center review of patients who were treated for aortoiliac or isolated common and/or internal iliac artery aneurysms from 2014 to 2017. Patients with connective tissue disorders, infected grafts, or thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, length of hospital (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, estimated blood loss, need for red blood cell transfusion (RBC), and perioperative reinterventions. Results: Sixty-seven patients (96% male) were treated with OS (n = 25, mean age 68 ± 8 years) or IBE (n = 42, mean age 73 ± 8 years; P = 0.02) with 1 symptomatic patient in each group. Perioperative mortality occurred in 1 patient in the OS group (4%), with no mortality in the IBE group (P = 0.37) Total LOS and ICU stay was higher for OS compared to IBE (total stay 7.5 ± 3.4 vs. 1.7 ± 1.4 days for IBE, P < 0.0001 and ICU LOS 3.3 ± 2.1 vs. 0.1 ± 0.4 days, P < 0.0001). Estimated blood loss was higher for patients undergoing OS (4,732 ± 2,540 mL) compared to patients treated with IBE (263 ± 451 mL, P < 0.0001), resulting in higher RBC transfusion requirements (1.5 ± 2.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.8 units, P = 0.001). Five patients in the OS group had early procedure-related reinterventions, while 2 patients in the IBE group required reintervention for access site complications (20% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.09). Conclusions: Endovascular repair of iliac aneurysms with IBE is feasible and is associated with lower blood loss, LOS and ICU stay, and had lower RBC transfusion requirements. Cost analysis and long-term follow-up will be needed to define the value of this modality for iliac artery aneurysm repair.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068777887&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068777887&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.05.003

DO - 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.05.003

M3 - Article

JO - Annals of Vascular Surgery

JF - Annals of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0890-5096

ER -