Iliac conduits remain safe in complex endovascular aortic repair

Abstract

Objective: Iliac conduits (ICs) are used for challenging iliac access during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with contradictory reports of safety and increased surgical complications, morbidity, and mortality in national database reviews. The objective of this study was to examine outcomes related to IC placement before or concomitant with EVAR at a high-volume single center.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent IC placement for endovascular aortic repair from 2006 to 2016 was conducted. Planned and unplanned, as well as staged and concomitant IC for EVAR, thoracic EVAR, and fenestrated/branched EVAR were included. Categorical factors were described using frequencies and percentages. Continuous measures were summarized in comparative tables. Comparisons between the planned and unplanned groups, concomitant and staged groups, and between those with and without a postoperative event were performed using Pearson χ² tests, two-sample t-tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

Results: A total of 137 patients underwent IC placement, of which 9 were bilateral procedures, for a total of 144 IC placements. IC placement was necessary in 14 EVARs (9.7%), 38 thoracic EVARs (26.4%), and 92 fenestrated/branched EVARs (63.9%). The 30-day related mortality was 2.1% (n = 3). Perioperative morbidities included return to the operating room in five patients (5.6%) for bleeding (n = 4) and graft thrombosis (n = 1), 4 myocardial infarctions (2.8%), 5 episodes of respiratory failure (3.5%), 12 wound complications (8.3%), and 7 renal injuries (4.9%), of which 3 had progression to dialysis (2.1%). Other complications included return to the operating room for endoleak reintervention (n = 3) and late graft infection (n = 1 [0.7%]). There were 112 ICs (77.8%) planned and 65 (45.1%) were staged. Staged ICs were less likely to have postoperative complications (P < .001), respiratory failure (P < .05), infectious complications (P < .05), and postoperative cerebrovascular accidents (P < .05). ICs were done to accommodate 20F to 24F sheath sizes in 131 instances (91.0%). Factors associated with unplanned IC placement were iliac rupture and an inability to advance the endograft in arteries deemed size-appropriate preoperatively (P < .001). Unplanned ICs were associated with higher estimated blood loss (P < .001), operating room transfusion volume (P < .001), and overall complication rates (P < .05). Women (P < .05), preoperative chronic kidney disease (P < .05), and concomitant IC placement (P < .001) were associated with higher overall complication rates. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and operating room transfusion volume were associated with increased rate of complications in comparison between all subgroups (P < .05).

Conclusions: ICs are a safe and viable option for high-risk patients with challenging iliac artery access for EVVAR. ICs are best performed in a planned fashion or in a staged manner, when feasible.

Keywords: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair; Iliac conduit; Staging aortic repair.