ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
International Multicentre Study on mid- and long-term Outcome of E-liac Iliac Branched Device.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the clinical outcomes of the E-liac (Artivion©) Iliac Branched Device (IBD) in mid- to long-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective multicentre observational study included all patients treated with the E-liac (Artivion©) IBD in the participating centres between January 2011 and December 2024. Patients treated for acute ruptured aneurysm were excluded. IBD was indicated for isolated iliac aneurysm, as treatment for type 1b endoleak or in combination with EVAR for aorto-iliac aneurysm. Primary outcome was technical success, defined as deploying the IBD as planned while maintaining flow in the internal and external iliac arteries (IIA, EIA), without type 1 or 3 endoleak extending beyond 30 days and without mortality within 30 days. A subgroup of patients with at least 60 months of follow-up was analysed separately.
resultsA total of 252 E-liac IBDs were deployed in 221 patients. One hundred and seventy-one IBDs (67.9%) required combination with EVAR, 61 (24.2%) IBDs were deployed for isolated iliac aneurysm, and 20 (7.9%) IBDs were used as extension for type 1b endoleak. Technical success was achieved in 241/252 IBDs (95.6%). Median follow-up time was 29 months (IQR 13.5-60). Two patients died within 30 days of the index procedure (0.9% of patients). Freedom from IBD-related reintervention at 12 months was 93.5% of IBDs. Sixty-four IBDs were included in the subgroup analysis of long-term follow-up. The IIA remained patent in 63 of these IBDs (98.4%).
conclusionMid- and long-term follow-up of the E-liac IBD demonstrate its effectiveness, with high IIA patency and acceptable reintervention rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42669775What 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.