Caroline Caradu1, Julien Morin1, Mathieu Poirier2, Dominique Midy1, Eric Ducasse3. 1. Unit of Vascular surgery, Université de Bordeaux, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 2. Unit of Vascular Surgery, CH de Mont-de-Marsan, Mont-de-Marsan, France. 3. Unit of Vascular surgery, Université de Bordeaux, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. Electronic address: Eric.ducasse@chu-bordeaux.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With approval of on-label fenestrated (F-) endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), concerns regarding long-term patency and endoleaks (ELs) after chimney graft (CG)-EVAR were raised. To add supportive data on the value of this technique, we chose to report the midterm results of CG-EVAR in a single center with standardized methods and to compare them to F-EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data from January 2010 to January 2015 was conducted, and patients with excessive comorbidities for open repair treated by CG-EVAR or F-EVAR were included. RESULTS: Ninety patients were treated by F-EVAR (88 men, 198 targets vessels) and 31 by CG-EVAR (26 men, 39 targets vessels, 12.9% treated in emergency; P = 0.001). Mean age was significantly higher in the CG group (71.3 ± 8.2 years in the FG group vs. 75.3 ± 6.6; P = 0.02), and there were significantly more patients suffering from preoperative chronic kidney disease (CKD) (13 [14.4%] treated by F-EVAR vs. 12 [38.7%]; P = 0.009). Target vessels were successfully reconstructed in 99.0% (196/198 target vessels) vs. 97.4% (38/39 target vessels) of cases (P = 0.3). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher after CG-EVAR (3.3% vs. 16.1%; P = 0.03). Incidence of acute kidney injury and CKD did not differ significantly between both groups. At 12 and 24 months, overall survival was 91.4% after F-EVAR vs. 82.1% and 81.8% vs. 69.0% (P = 0.4), estimated freedom from aneurysm related reintervention was 93.3% vs. 82.1% and 84.9% vs. 82.1% (P = 0.6), and target vessel's primary patency rate was 97.5% vs. 89.9% (P = 0.06), respectively. Freedom from type I EL's survival was significantly higher after F-EVAR at 12 and 24 months (100% vs. 89.0% and 97.7% vs. 89.0%; P = 0.01), but aneurysm maximum transverse diameter decrease did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: There are potential advantages to CG-EVAR with off-the-shelf availability, versatility, and low-profile devices. In this series, patients treated by CG-EVAR showed promising and durable midterm results compared with F-EVAR. CG-EVAR and F-EVAR should not be apprehended as opposed strategies but more as complementary ones, while the best indications for CG-EVAR are clarified.
BACKGROUND: With approval of on-label fenestrated (F-) endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), concerns regarding long-term patency and endoleaks (ELs) after chimney graft (CG)-EVAR were raised. To add supportive data on the value of this technique, we chose to report the midterm results of CG-EVAR in a single center with standardized methods and to compare them to F-EVAR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data from January 2010 to January 2015 was conducted, and patients with excessive comorbidities for open repair treated by CG-EVAR or F-EVAR were included. RESULTS: Ninety patients were treated by F-EVAR (88 men, 198 targets vessels) and 31 by CG-EVAR (26 men, 39 targets vessels, 12.9% treated in emergency; P = 0.001). Mean age was significantly higher in the CG group (71.3 ± 8.2 years in the FG group vs. 75.3 ± 6.6; P = 0.02), and there were significantly more patients suffering from preoperative chronic kidney disease (CKD) (13 [14.4%] treated by F-EVAR vs. 12 [38.7%]; P = 0.009). Target vessels were successfully reconstructed in 99.0% (196/198 target vessels) vs. 97.4% (38/39 target vessels) of cases (P = 0.3). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher after CG-EVAR (3.3% vs. 16.1%; P = 0.03). Incidence of acute kidney injury and CKD did not differ significantly between both groups. At 12 and 24 months, overall survival was 91.4% after F-EVAR vs. 82.1% and 81.8% vs. 69.0% (P = 0.4), estimated freedom from aneurysm related reintervention was 93.3% vs. 82.1% and 84.9% vs. 82.1% (P = 0.6), and target vessel's primary patency rate was 97.5% vs. 89.9% (P = 0.06), respectively. Freedom from type I EL's survival was significantly higher after F-EVAR at 12 and 24 months (100% vs. 89.0% and 97.7% vs. 89.0%; P = 0.01), but aneurysm maximum transverse diameter decrease did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: There are potential advantages to CG-EVAR with off-the-shelf availability, versatility, and low-profile devices. In this series, patients treated by CG-EVAR showed promising and durable midterm results compared with F-EVAR. CG-EVAR and F-EVAR should not be apprehended as opposed strategies but more as complementary ones, while the best indications for CG-EVAR are clarified.