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



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



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

DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09655-5


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


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