Home > Journals > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery > Past Issues > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2018 August;59(4) > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2018 August;59(4):600-10

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

REVIEW  VASCULAR SECTION 

The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2018 August;59(4):600-10

DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09655-5

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Chimney versus fenestrated endovascular aortic repair for juxta-renal aneurysms

Caroline CARADU, Xavier BERARD, Gérard SASSOUST, Dominique MIDY, Eric DUCASSE

Unit of Vascular Surgery, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France


PDF


INTRODUCTION: Anatomical constrains, high price and manufacturing delay restrict fenestrated (F)-endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) to elective patients in specialized centers. Chimney graft (CG)-EVAR offers an alternative but uncertainties remain over target vessel’s patency and type Ia endoleaks (ELs).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We reviewed the literature reporting F-EVAR and CG-EVAR for juxta-renal aneurysms between January 2005 and July 2016.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies on F-EVAR, 8 on CG-EVAR and 5 on both techniques were included; 1748 F-EVAR patients (3993 target vessels) vs. 757 (1158 target vessels, 13% symptomatic and 7% ruptured). F-EVAR patients suffered from significantly less comorbidities, technical success was lower (94% vs. 99%; P<0.0001) but with more reconstructed vessels/patient (2.2±0.4 vs. 1.5±0.3; P<0.0001) and 30-day mortality was lower (2% vs. 4%, P=0.02). There were more re-interventions after F-EVAR (20% vs. 8%; P<0.0001); mainly EL (44% vs. 25%) and target vessels related (36% vs. 32%); less type I ELs (1% vs. 6%; P=0.002) but more type III (2% vs. 0%; P<0.0001). The rates of chronic kidney disease (9% vs. 15%; P=0.0002) and dialysis (1% vs. 3%; P=0.007) were lower after F-EVAR, with less target vessel’s occlusions (3% vs. 6%; P<0.0001). The meta-analysis on 5 comparative studies supported F-EVAR in terms of 30-day mortality (OR 0.94 [0.25, 3.55]), target vessel’s occlusions (OR 2.40 [0.95, 6.06]) and type I EL (OR 0.62 [0.10, 3.93]); and CG-EVAR in terms of technical success (OR 3.28 [0.67, 15.93], type II (OR 1.25 [0.48, 3.28]) and III ELs (OR 1.62 [0.29, 8.94]) and re-intervention (OR 1.77 [0.89, 3.52]) without a significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support CG-EVAR’s widespread use in all elective patients but CG-EVAR seems justified in symptomatic patients, as bailout, or in elective patients who are poor candidates for open repair and F-EVAR.


KEY WORDS: Aneurysm - Endovascular procedures - Meta-analysis

top of page