4.5 Review

A systematic review on endovascular repair of isolated common iliac artery aneurysms and suggestions regarding diameter thresholds for intervention

Journal

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 74, Issue 5, Pages 1752-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.01.064

Keywords

Common iliac artery aneurysm; Endovascular repair; Systematic review; Diameter threshold

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study showed that endovascular repair for isolated common iliac artery aneurysms is feasible and safe, with low mortality and excellent technical success rates. Further studies with longer follow-up and reliable long-term results are needed.
Objective: Our aim was to systematically review results of endovascular aneurysm repair for isolated common iliac artery aneurysms (CIAA) regarding outcomes and to determine if changes should be made to current diameter threshold recommendations for intervention. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central databases were searched. Results: Twenty-one studies were deemed eligible and provided data for 879 patients and 981 isolated CIAA treated with endovascular repair. The majority of the patients (90.8%) were males. The weighted mean age of the patients was 71.7 years (range, 37-91 years). The weighted mean diameter for the CIAA was 41. mm1 (range, 15-110 mm) and for ruptured aneurysms 58.4 mm. The overall technical success rate was 97.6%. The perioperative mortality rate was 0.7%. Secondary patency rates were reported in only four studies and varied between 96.7% and 100%. The overall morbidity rate was 14%, ranging from 0% to 25%. Most of the studies did not report long-term or adequate follow-up data. Rupture of an isolated CIAA at <4 cm diameter was extremely low. Conclusions: Endovascular treatment of isolated CIAA is feasible and safe with a low mortality and excellent technical success rates. Consideration of increasing the diameter threshold for intervention of CIAA to 4 cm should be considered. Studies with longer follow-up and reliable long-term results are needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available