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.