Deployment of stent graft in an excessively higher position above the renal artery induces a flow channel to the aneurysm in chimney endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: an in vitro study

Latest evidence on chimney endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms and the renal artery angulation pitfall

This article summarizes the key findings in literature up to date on the endovascular treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) employing the chimney technique. Additionally, an unexplored pitfall is described regarding the target vessel angulation. Although balloon-expandable covered stents present more favorable configuration in downward-oriented target vessels, transverse and upward-oriented target vessels may benefit from other endovascular techniques imploring careful case planning and further investigation on the topic.

What we have learned from in-vitro studies of the chimney endovascular technique for treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is not eligible for standard endovascular repair. These complex cases require alternative surgical approaches including the readily available chimney graft endovascular aneurysm repair (Ch-EVAR) or sealing (Ch-EVAS). The optimal configuration for Ch-EVAR or Ch-EVAS is important for success but not yet known.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to analyze current data of the outcomes of in-vitro chimney graft treatment in complex AAA.

METHODS

A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted including studies reporting on gutter size, main graft compression, and chimney graft compression in in-vitro configurations.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 285 articles. 11 studies considering 219 individual tests could be included. Gutter size was comparable between Ch-EVAR and Ch-EVAS configurations. In Ch-EVAR set-ups, the deployed BECG were Advanta V12, VIABAHN®, and BeGraft. One type of SECG was used: VIABAHN®. The four types of main grafts (MG) deployed were: Endurant™ I/II; EXCLUDER Conformable AAA Endoprosthesis and AAA Endoprosthesis, and AFX™ Endovascular AAA Delivery System. In the EVAS-configurations, the Nellix® EVAS system was deployed. In general, SECG presented smaller gutters with higher chimney graft compression. 30% main grafts oversizing seems to give the smallest gutters without high risk of infolding of MG. Oversizing, EndoAnchors, and secondary endobag filling (in Ch-EVAS) reduced gutter sizes. CG ballooning during the entire polymer injection in Ch-EVAS prevented CG compression.

CONCLUSION

In-vitro investigations provide insight in optimal Ch-EVAR and Ch-EVAS configurations for simulated complex AAA repair. The findings above might aid physicians in their planning to potential CG set-ups and can be used in future research to refine the most optimal configuration for chimney graft technique in complex AAA.

In Vitro Radiological Evaluation of Different Types of Chimney Stents Using a Silicon Flow Model with Adjustable Physiological Simulating Conditions

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate in vitro the performance of in vivo published covered or bare metal chimney stents (ChSs) in combination with the Endurant II abdominal endograft (Medtronic) as the only CE approved main graft (MG) in the treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms with the chimney endovascular aneurysm repair (chEVAR) technique.

METHODS

Bench top experimental study. A silicon flow model with adjustable physiological simulating conditions and patient based anatomy was used to test nine different MG-ChS combinations: Advanta V12 (Getinge); BeGraft+ (Bentley); VBX (Gore & Associates Inc.); LifeStream (Bard Medical); Dynamic (Biotronik); Absolute Pro (Abbott); double Absolute Pro; Viabahn (Gore) lined with Dynamic; and Viabahn lined with EverFlex (Medtronic). Angiotomography was performed after each implantation. DICOM data were analysed blindly twice per observer by three independent experienced observers. Each blinded evaluation was performed at one month intervals. The main analysed parameters were the area of gutters, MG and ChS maximum compression, and the presence of infolding.

RESULTS

Bland-Altman analysis confirmed adequate results correlation (p < .05). Each employed ChS showed significantly different performance favouring the balloon expandable covered stent (BECS). The smallest gutter area was seen in the combination with Advanta V12 (0.26 cm2). MG infolding was observed in all tests. The lowest ChS compression was observed in the combination with BeGraft+ (compression 4.91%, D ratio 0.95). In our model, BECSs showed higher angulations than bare metal stents (BMSs) (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

This in vitro study shows the variability of performance with each theoretically possible ChS and explains the divergent ChS outcomes in the published literature. BECS in combination with the Endurant abdominal device confirms their superiority vs. BMS. The presence of MG infolding in each test underlines the need for prolonged kissing ballooning. Angulation evaluation and comparison with other in vitro and in vivo publications demands the need for further investigation in transversely or upwardly oriented target vessels.

Systematic Review of the Current In Vitro Experience of the Endovascular Treatment of Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms by Fenestrated and Parallel Endografting

OBJECTIVE

To identify and analyze the published in vitro benchtop experiments for the assessment of endovascular techniques used for the treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (jAAAs).

DATA SOURCES

Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out throughout March 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Two investigators independently performed title and abstract screening to reveal all benchtop testing evaluating the endovascular treatment of jAAA.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included, 8 evaluating fenestrated (FEVAR) and 11 parallel grafts (PGs). FEVAR studies used different custom testing apparatus (n=7) or 3D-printed models (n=1) to analyze dislodgement and migration resistance, misalignment consequences and causation, and bridging stents' radial force, flareability, fatigue, and fracture resistance. All PG studies used silicone-based models to analyze optimal oversizing, sealing length, gutter behavior, and possible reduction. Test evaluation in FEVAR in vitro testing was based on pullout force analysis (N=5), photo evaluation (n=1), fluoroscopy (n=1), X-rays (n=4), CT analysis (n=3), macro- and microscopic evaluation (n=4), water permeability (n=1), and fatigue simulator testing (n=1), while it was based on CT analysis in all PG studies adding ECG-gate in one study. The most frequently tested devices were Zenit (Cook) (n=7), Endurant (Medtronic) (n=5), and Excluder (Gore) (n=5) as main grafts, and Advanta V12 (n=14) as the bridging device.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review presents a broad analysis of the current in vitro methods evaluating the endovascular treatment of jAAA. Fundamental issues have been benchtop tested in both FEVAR and PGs. The analysis of the included studies allowed to recommend an optimal testing design. In vitro testing is a potential tool to further elucidate points of attention hard to investigate in vivo to finally enhance the endovascular treatment outcomes. Future in vitro studies are needed to evaluate the in vitro performance of all indistinctively used devices in the clinical practice.