1
|
Bath J, Fazzini S, Ippoliti A, Vogel TR, Singh P, Donas KP, Torsello G. Chimney endovascular aneurysm repair (ChEVAR) for hostile neck complex aneurysm. Vascular 2022; 30:1058-1068. [PMID: 35199611 DOI: 10.1177/17085381211043951] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Recent guidelines recognize the role of chimney endovascular aneurysm repair (ChEVAR) in the treatment of complex aortic disorders. The optimal configuration and number of visceral vessels that can be incorporated is still controversial. We aim to review outcomes from a multi-institutional decade-long experience with ChEVAR. METHODS Patients undergoing ChEVAR with multiple (≥2) chimney branches were selected from a prospectively maintained database at the two academic university hospitals. All patients were poorly suited for fenestrated or branched endograft repair (F/BEVAR) and deemed poor-risk for open surgery. RESULTS Forty-nine multiple ChEVAR were performed in 44 men and 5 women, with complete outcome data at a mean follow-up of 18 months. Overall, 2 patients died during follow-up (4%) with no aneurysm-related mortality and two ruptures after ChEVAR (4.1%) due to a type Ib endoleak from iliac limb pullout and persistent gutter-flow, both repaired with endovascular means. No stroke or spinal cord ischemia was noted during the follow-up period. Reintervention was undertaken in eight patients (16.3%) with five reinterventions for persistent gutter-flow and four chimney graft-associated. Three-vessel ChEVAR was performed in 16 patients, with two-vessel ChEVAR in 33 patients for a total of 114 chimney branches (mean 2.3 chimneys per patient). There were 21 superior mesenteric artery (SMA), 45 right renal, 46 left renal artery (LRA), and two accessory LRA chimneys placed. Antegrade configuration of chimney branches was chosen in 43 patients (88%). There were no significant differences between three-vessel and two-vessel ChEVAR upon univariate analysis in aneurysm size (65.6 vs 60.5 mm; p = 0.059), iliac diameter (7.3 vs 7.1 mm; p = 0.85), or endograft oversizing (30 vs 32.5%; p = 0.43). Three-vessel ChEVAR was associated with a larger aneurysm neck diameter (28.4 vs 25.0 mm; p = 0.021), shorter native infrarenal neck (0.5 vs 3.37 mm; p = 0.002) as well as longer seal zone (36.33 vs 22.67 mm; p = 0.005) compared with two-vessel ChEVAR. At follow-up, there were no significant differences in gutter area between three-vessel and two-vessel ChEVAR (18.9 vs 15.7 mm3; p = 0.73) nor the rate of persistent gutter-flow (12.5 vs 9.1%; p = 0.71). CONCLUSION Reintervention to multiple chimney grafts and for persistent gutter-flow is higher compared to single chimneys and demands close surveillance. However, based upon this combined transantlantic experience, we believe multiple ChEVAR provides a reasonable and safe option for complex aortic aneurysm repair when open or custom endografts are not available or indicated based on their Instructions For use, even when triple chimney grafts are required. The optimal configuration for multiple ChEVAR still warrants further study, although theoretical preliminary advantages may exist for a combination of antegrade and retrograde chimneys.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Bath
- Division of Vascular Surgery, 209318University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | | | | | - Todd R Vogel
- Division of Vascular Surgery, 209318University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | - Priyanka Singh
- Division of Vascular Surgery, 209318University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | | | - Giovanni Torsello
- 2039612St Franziskus Hospital University of Münster, Münster, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Shu X, Xu H, Wang E, Wang L, Guo D, Chen B, Fu W. Midterm Outcomes of an Adjustable Puncture Device for In Situ Fenestration During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2021; 63:43-51. [PMID: 34750032 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.09.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2021] [Revised: 09/03/2021] [Accepted: 09/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the midterm outcomes of in situ fenestration (ISF) with an adjustable puncture device for aortic arch branch preservation during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS From October 2016 to April 2019, patients with complicated type B aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm > 5.5 cm in diameter, or aortic penetrating ulcer with a base > 20 mm or depth > 15 mm, who received TEVAR requiring a proximal sealing beyond zone 3 and underwent ISF using an adjustable puncture device, were included. After the procedure, patients were monitored at one, three, six, and 12 months, and annually thereafter. Peri-operative and follow up data were collected and analysed. RESULTS Fifty of 51 patients (98%) received successful ISFs. One, two, or three aortic arch branches were preserved in 44, six, and one patient, respectively. Intra-operatively, eight type Ia endoleaks and one type II endoleak were found on angiography. One patient died of cerebral hernia three days post-procedure from a severe stroke; one patient suffered from transient paraplegia but recovered in two weeks; one patient had a non-disabling stroke. The median follow up was 31 months (22.5 - 36.5 months). At six month follow up, all nine unmanaged endoleaks had disappeared. One new type Ia endoleak was identified in a patient at the one month follow up which resolved spontaneously one year later. All revascularised arteries were patent at the last follow up. No fractures, migrations, or bridging stent kinks were found. CONCLUSION In this largest mechanical based ISF study to date, an adjustable puncture device was shown to facilitate the procedure of ISF during endovascular repair of aortic diseases involving the aortic arch, with high success. The midterm outcome demonstrates the efficacy and safety of the device in assisting with preservation of aortic arch branches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaolong Shu
- Department of Vascular Surgery, Xiamen Branch of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Institute of Vascular Surgery, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Houpu Xu
- Department of Vascular Surgery, Xiamen Branch of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Institute of Vascular Surgery, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Enci Wang
- Department of Vascular Surgery, Xiamen Branch of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Institute of Vascular Surgery, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Lixin Wang
- Department of Vascular Surgery, Xiamen Branch of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Institute of Vascular Surgery, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
| | - Daqiao Guo
- Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Institute of Vascular Surgery, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Bin Chen
- Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Institute of Vascular Surgery, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Weiguo Fu
- Department of Vascular Surgery, Xiamen Branch of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Institute of Vascular Surgery, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
| |
Collapse
|