ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2023
Branched endovascular iliac artery repair using the Zenith
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eleven Years of Experience in the Treatment of Aortoiliac Aneurysm with the E-Liac Stent-Graft System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to analyze the outcomes and the need for reinterventions following branched iliac artery repair using the Zenith Methods: Patient characteristics and follow-up data on 63 patients following branched iliac artery repair using the ZBIS device were evaluated and compared between patients with and without iliac reinterventions. A competing risk regression model was analyzed to identify independent predictors of reinterventions, and to predict the reintervention risk. Results: ZBIS implantation's technical success rate was 100%, and we observed no in-hospital mortality. Internal iliac artery patency was 93% during a median [first quartile, third quartile] follow-up of 19 [5, 39] months. Thirty-two iliac reinterventions were performed in 23 patients (37%) after a mean time of 3.0 months (IQR: 0.4-6.8) (time to first reintervention). Endoleaks type I and II were the most common indication for reinterventions (n=14, 61%). The internal iliac artery's diameter [subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR): 1.046; P=0.0015] and a prior abdominal aortic intervention (sHR: 0.3331; P=0.0370) were identified as significant variables in the competing risk regression model for a reintervention. The risk for reintervention was 33% (95% CI: 20-46%), and 46% (95% CI: 28-63%) after 12 and 36 months, respectively. Conclusions: Endovascular repair of degenerative iliac artery aneurysms with Zenith Branch Iliac Bifurcation device is a feasible and safe option. Perioperative morbidity and mortality are low with good graft patency rates. The risk for secondary iliac artery interventions is considerable and highlights the need for patients with iliac disease to undergo continuous follow-up in a dedicated vascular center.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.