Purpose: The treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm has largely shifted to endovascular techniques. However, severe iliofemoral arterial disease often presents a challenge during these interventions. As a result, iliac conduits have been introduced to facilitate aortic endovascular therapy. The goal of the current study was to gauge utilization and to analyze iliac artery conduit outcomes to facilitate endovascular therapy to treat aortic pathologies. Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis of 14 studies was conducted with the use of random effects modeling. The incidence of periprocedural adverse events was gauged based on iliac conduit vs nonconduit cases and planned vs unplanned iliac conduit placement. Outcomes of interest included length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality associated to conduits, and all-cause mortality. Results: Iliac conduits, either open or endo-conduits, were utilized in 17% (95% CI: 9%–27%) of 16,855 cases, with technical successful rate of 94% (95% CI: 80%–100%). Periprocedural complications occurred in 32% (95% CI: 22%–42%) of the cases, with overall bleeding complication rate being 10% (95% CI: 5%–16%). Female patients, positive history for smoking, pulmonary disease, and peripheral artery disease at baseline were associated with more frequent utilization of iliac conduits. Conduit use was associated with longer hospitalization, higher periprocedural all-cause mortality (OR: 2.85; 95% CI: 1.75–4.64; p<0.001), and bleeding complication rate (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.58–3.58; p<0.001). Sensitivity analysis among conduit cases showed that planned conduits were associated with fewer periprocedural complications compared to unplanned conduits (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.20–0.73; p=0.004). Conclusion: Iliac conduit placement is a feasible strategy, associated with high technical success to facilitate complex aortic endovascular repair. However, periprocedural adverse event rate, including bleeding complications is not negligible. All-cause mortality and morbidity rates among cases that require iliac conduits should be strongly considered during clinical decision making. High-quality comparative analyses between iliac conduit vs nonconduit cases and between several types of iliac conduit grafts aiming at facilitating endovascular aortic repair are still needed to determine the best strategy to address challenging iliac artery accesses.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Iliac artery anatomy can have a dramatic impact on the success of endovascular complex aortic aneurysm (CAA) procedures as endograft delivery systems need to be advanced and manipulated through these access vessels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of iliac artery conduits with emphasizes on open vs endovascular conduits performed to facilitate CAA endovascular repair. Methods All patients who had open or endovascular iliac conduits prior to endovascular CAA repair to treat thoracoabdominal, juxtarenal, or suprarenal aneurysms at the University of Colorado Hospital from January 2009 through January 2019 were included. Patients who presented with symptomatic or ruptured aortic aneurysms were excluded. Outcomes of interest included postoperative complications and mortality in patients undergoing iliac conduits. Results Twenty-seven patients with a total of 42 conduits were included in the study. The majority of patients ( N = 15, 56%) were female and the average age was 72 ± 9 years. The calculated VQI cardiac index was .6% (range, .3%–.8%). Eighteen (43%) endovascular and 24 (57%) open iliac conduits were performed during the study period. Thirty (71%) conduits were performed in a staged fashion, while 12 (29%) were performed at the same time as endovascular CAA repair. The mean time between conduit and definitive aneurysm repair surgery was 130 ± 68 days in the endovascular and 107 ± 79 days in the open groups ( P = .87). No aneurysm rupture occurred during the staging period in either group. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 18 ± 22 months. The median length of hospital stay for patients undergoing endovascular and open ICs was 6 (ranging, 1–28 days) and 7 days (ranging, 3–18 days), respectively. Patients undergoing open conduits had significantly more complications than those undergoing endovascular conduit (endoconduit) creation. A total of 4 (15%) patients died within 30 days after aneurysm repair. Out of 23 survivors, 18 (78%) patients were discharged home, 4 (18%) patients were discharged to a skilled nursing facility, and 1 (4%) patient was discharged to an acute rehabilitation facility. No mortality difference based on type of conduit was found. Conclusions Overall complication rate associated with creation of open iliac artery conduits is not negligible. Endoconduits, which carry less morbidity than open conduits, are preferred as a first-line adjunctive access procedure to facilitate complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

No abstract