Comparison of Two Iliac Branch Devices and Their Midterm Performance in Maintaining Blood Flow to the Internal Iliac Artery.

Purpose: To compare and contrast the midterm outcomes of the E-liac and Zenith (ZBIS) iliac branch devices (IBDs) for the preservation of the internal iliac artery (IIA) in aneurysms involving the iliac bifurcation. Materials and

Methods

Between January 2014 and December 2018, 84 consecutive patients (median age 74 years; 76 men) were electively treated with the E-liac (n=44) or ZBIS (n=40) IBDs and were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the technical success, patency, need for reintervention, and mortality associated with these devices.

Results

Technical success was achieved in 95 of 99 implantations (95.9%) without any statistically significant difference between the groups (93.7% vs 98.0%, p=0.114). During the first 30 days, 3 occlusions in the ZBIS group and 1 in the E-liac group were identified. There was 1 perioperative death in the ZBIS group. The median follow-up was 37 months for the ZBIS group and 28 months for the E-liac group (p=0.657). Six patients from the ZBIS group and 7 from the E-liac group were lost to follow-up. Among the remaining, there were 2 further deaths recorded, 1 in each group. Four further reinterventions in the E-liac group and 2 in the ZBIS group were performed during follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from reintervention were 87.2% (95% CI 82.6% to 90.2%) for the ZBIS group and at 86.0% (95% CI 83.7% to 89.1%) for the E-liac group (p=0.563); the freedom from occlusion estimates were 89.7% (95% CI 85.8% to 94.5%) and 95.3% (95% CI 92% to 98.7%; p=0.317), respectively.

Conclusion

The E-liac and the ZBIS IBDs showed equally high technical success, midterm patency, and low reintervention rates.