Outcomes of Gore iliac branch endoprosthesis with internal iliac component versus Gore Viabahn VBX

• Published in: Journal of vascular surgery Vol. 76; no. 3; pp. 733 - 740.e2
• Main Authors: Pickney, Cole C., Rowse, Jarrad, Quatromoni, Jon, Kirksey, Levester, Caputo, Francis J., Lyden, Sean P., Smolock, Christopher J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.09.2022
• Subjects: Gore Excluder IBE; Internal iliac artery; Internal iliac component; Viabahn VBX; Viabahn VBX; Internal iliac artery; Internal iliac component; Gore Excluder IBE
• ISSN: 0741-5214; 1097-6809
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.02.053

The Gore Excluder iliac branch endoprosthesis (IBE; W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ) is the only iliac branch device approved in the United States to preserve blood flow to the external and internal iliac arteries (IIAs). Some surgeons have used the Gore Viabahn VBX balloon expandable endoprosthesis (VBX; W.L. Gore & Associates) in the IIA rather than the self-expanding endograft designed for the IBE, the internal iliac component (IIC). The objective of the present study was to examine the outcomes for patients treated for aortoiliac artery aneurysms using the IBE with either the IIC or VBX stent. We performed a retrospective, single-center review of patients treated for aortoiliac artery aneurysms using the Gore IBE device, with either the IIC or VBX stent into the IIA, from February 2016 to March 2021. The patient demographics, procedure details, 30-day morbidity and mortality, and 6-month and 1-year outcomes and mortality were analyzed. The categorical factors are summarized using frequencies and proportions. Continuous measures are summarized as the mean ± standard deviation. A significance level of P = .05 was assumed for all test results. The analyses were performed using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). A total of 62 patients (64 arteries) had undergone elective aortoiliac artery aneurysm repair with the IBE. The IIC was used exclusively in 35 cases (55%) and the VBX in 29 (45%). The patients who had received the VBX had had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = .006). Upper extremity access was used for VBX delivery in 24.1% of the procedures. No return to the operating room was required in either group. No differences were found in technical success (IIC, 97.1%; VBX, 93.1%; P = .59), the presence of endoleak on completion (20.0% vs 6.9%; P = .17), readmission (97.1% vs 93.1%; P = .59), or mortality (1.6% vs 0%; P = .45) at 30 days. No differences were found in the requirement for any IBE reintervention after 30 days. No type Ia, Ib, or III endoleaks had occurred in either group at any follow-up point. No significant difference was found in internal iliac limb primary patency (IIC, 100%; VBX, 96.3%) between groups. A nonstatistically significant trend was found toward fewer trunk–ipsilateral leg type II endoleaks in the VBX group during follow-up. These data suggest that the VBX is a reasonable substitute for the IIC, with a comparable safety and efficacy profile. Given its inherent conformability, greater range of diameters, and longer working length, the VBX stent offers expanded IIA branch options with the IBE.