Chimney Technique Research Articles

Early and Midterm Outcomes of Chimney Endovascular Aortic Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

To compare the outcomes of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using a chimney technique (ch-EVAR) with those of the standard EVAR (st-EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA). We implemented ch-EVAR for juxtarenal RAAA based on obvious anatomical indications after converting the strategy for RAAA from open repair to EVAR. A retrospective, cohort-based study was conducted on patients with RAAA who were treated using EVAR in our hospital between July 2011 and March 2022. EVAR cases were extracted, and outcomes were compared between ch-EVAR and st-EVAR. Patient clinical status, anatomical variables, treatment, and follow-up data were evaluated. A total of 56 (82%) and 12 (18%) patients were treated by st-EVAR and ch-EVAR, respectively. Thirty-day mortality rates were comparable between the 2 groups [8.9% in st-EVAR vs 8.3% in ch-EVAR (p= 0.95)]. Short-term outcomes showed that no type Ia endoleak occurred in either group. Midterm outcomes, including sac enlargement [7.5% in st-EVAR vs 0% in ch-EVAR (p= 0.37)], shrinkage [77.5% in st-EVAR vs 80.0% in ch-EVAR (p= 0.86)], and overall survival and freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention at 3 years [64.7% and 96.4% in the EVAR group vs 91.7% and 100% in the ch-EVAR group, respectively (p= 0.30 and 0.52)], were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Ch-EVAR for RAAA showed remarkably excellent outcomes, comparable to those of st-EVAR. Ch-EVAR is considered technically feasible in experienced centers. The indications for EVAR for RAAA may be further expanded using the chimney technique, resulting in overall improved outcomes for RAAA. This is a retrospective, single-center analysis of 68 patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) treated by endovascular repair (EVAR) to investigate the efficacy of the chimney technique for juxtarenal RAAA. Thirty-day mortality rate was 8.3% for the chimney EVAR group, which was equivalent to that in the standard EVAR group. Mid-term outcomes including sac enlargement/shrinkage, overall survival, and freedom from aneurysm-related reintervention were comparable between the two groups. This report suggests the possibility of broadening the selection criteria of the current endovascular strategy using the chimney technique.

Repair of parastomal hernias with the intraperitoneal funnel meshes IPST-R and IPST

The treatment of parastomal hernias (PSH) represents a major challenge in hernia surgery. Various techniques have been reported with different outcomes in terms of complication and recurrence rates. The aim of this study is to share our initial experience with the implantation of the DynaMesh-IPST-R and -IPST, intraperitoneal funnel meshes made of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). This is a retrospective observational cohort study of patients treated for PSH between March 2019 and April 2023 using the chimney technique with the intraperitoneal funnel meshes IPST-R or IPST. The primary outcome was recurrence and the secondary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications, the latter assessed using the Clavien–Dindo classification. A total of 21 consecutive patients were treated with intraperitoneal PVDF funnel meshes, 17 with IPST-R and 4 with IPST. There were no intraoperative complications. Overall, no complications occurred in 61.9% (n = 12) of the patients. Major postoperative complications (defined as Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3b) were noted in four cases (19.0%). During the mean follow-up period of 21.6 (range 4.8–37.5) months, one patient (4.8%) had a recurrence. In conclusion, for the treatment of parastomal hernias, the implantation of IPST-R or IPST mesh has proven to be efficient, easy to handle, and very safe. In particular, the low recurrence rate of 4.8%, which is in line with the current literature, is convincing. However, a larger number of patients would improve the validity of the results.

Chimney technique for recurrent mitral regurgitation posttransapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair

Chimney technique for recurrent mitral regurgitation posttransapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair

Comparison of chimney technique and single-branched stent graft in a cohort of patients with type B aortic dissections: a retrospective cohort study.

Single-branched stent grafts and the chimney technique are widely used in the treatment of type B aortic dissection (TBAD). The main objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-branched stent grafts and the chimney technique in the treatment of TBAD. From January 2019 to December 2021, the retrospective cohort study contained a cohort of 91 patients with TBAD undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using single-branched stent grafts and the chimney technique. Group A included 55 patients treated with single-branched covered stents, and Group B included 36 patients treated with the chimney technique. We compared the effects of the procedures on peri-/post-operative outcomes between the two groups. The primary endpoint is clinical death, and the secondary endpoints include the patency of branch stents, the incidence of cerebral infarction, false lumen thrombosis, and the proportion of paraplegia. For the baseline data, the two groups of patients show no differences in terms of age, gender, and associated symptoms. All procedures were successfully performed in both groups. The median follow-up period was 17.6 months (range, 10-34 months). During TEVAR, 5 (9.1%) type I endoleaks occurred in group A, and 11 (30.6%) occurred in group B (P<0.05). During follow-up, there were 2 cases (3.6%) of paraplegia and 1 case (1.8%) of cerebral infarction in Group A, while Group B had 1 case (2.8%) of paraplegia. Three patients in group B reported retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD), and 1 of them died (2.8%); however, there were no RTAD cases in group A. Complete thrombosis of the false lumen in the thoracic aorta was observed in 45.5% (25/55) of patients in group A and in 41.7% (15/36) in group B (P=0.72). No significant difference in the thrombosis-volume ratio in the whole false lumen was found during follow-up between group A (81.0%±2.9%) and group B (81.8%±2.6%; P=0.23). Branched stent grafts can be used in cases with insufficient proximal landing zones and reduce the occurrence of type 1 endoleak compared to the chimney technique. This may help to prevent RTAD. Further research, including more cases and longer follow-up periods, is needed to substantiate these results.

Comparison of total percutaneous in situ microneedle puncture and chimney technique for left subclavian artery fenestration in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection.

To compare the outcomes of totally percutaneous in situ microneedle puncture for left subclavian artery (LSA) fenestration (ISMF) and chimney technique in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Data on patients who underwent either chimney-TEVAR (n = 89) or ISMF-TEVAR (n = 113) from October 2018 to April 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcomes were mortality and major complications at 30 days and during follow-up. The technical success rate was 84.3% in the chimney group and 93.8% in the ISMF group (p = 0.027). The incidence of immediate endoleakage was significantly higher in the chimney than ISMF group (15.7% vs 6.2%, respectively; p = 0.027). The 1- and 3-year survival rates in the chimney and ISMF groups were 98.9% ± 1.1% vs 98.1% ± 0.9% and 86.5% ± 6.3% vs 92.6% ± 4.1%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.715). The 3-year rate of cumulative freedom from branch occlusion in the chimney and ISMF group was 95.4% ± 2.3% vs 100%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.023). Both ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR achieved satisfactory short- and mid-term outcomes for the preservation of the LSA in patients with TBAD. ISMF-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes with higher patency and lower reintervention rates. However, ISMF-TEVAR had longer operation times with higher procedure expenses. When LSA revascularization is required during TEVAR, in situ, fenestration, and chimney techniques are all safe and effective methods; in situ, fenestration-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes, but takes longer and is more complicated. LSA revascularization during TEVAR reduces post-operative complication rates. Both in situ ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR are safe and effective techniques for the preservation of the LSA during TEVAR. The chimney technique is associated with a higher incidence of endoleakage and branch occlusion, but ISMF-TEVAR is a more complicated and expensive technique.

Protagoras 3.0: feasibility of current fenestrated endografts and chimney technique for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the anatomical feasibility of current available fenestrated endografts (FEVAR) and on-label chimney technique (EnChEVAR) in patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (C-AAA). Feasibility of EnChEVAR (Endurant II/IIS CE-marked [Medtronic]) and 4 types of FEVAR (Zenith Fenestrated CE-marked, Zenith Fenestrated Low-Profile [LP] custom-made device [CMD] [Cook Medical], Fenestrated Anaconda LoPro90 CMD, Fenestrated Treo CMD [Terumo Aortic]) was assessed according to the manufacturer's instructions for use. Computed tomography angiograms of patients with C-AAA previously included in the Protagoras 2.0 study were retrospectively reviewed. The aortic coverage was ideally planned to involve a maximum of two chimney grafts or fenestrations. Iliac access and aortic neck of 73 C-AAAs were analyzed. The overall feasibility was significantly different between EnChEVAR (33%) and FEVAR (Zenith Fenestrated 15%, Zenith Fenestrated LP 15%, Fenestrated Anaconda LoPro90 45%, Fenestrated Treo 48%). The iliac access feasibility was significantly lower for Zenith Fenestrated with standard profile compared to all other grafts. The aortic neck feasibility was significantly higher for EnChEVAR and both Terumo Aortic fenestrated stent grafts, compared to both Cook Medical grafts. The treatment using any of the three current available fenestrated grafts with lower profile (Zenith Fenestrated LP, Fenestrated Anaconda LoPro90, Fenestrated Treo) would have been feasible in 71% of the cases. Most of the patients treated by ChEVAR would have not been treated by first generation fenestrated stent graft. The current available fenestrated endografts, with lower profile and suitable also for angulated necks, increase the anatomical feasibility.

Pararenal Aortic Thrombus in Patients Undergoing Aortic Aneurysm Repair With Chimney Technique.

Chimney technique (chimney graft in abdominal aortic aneurysm repair [ChEVAR]) can be used to treat patients with pararenal aortic aneurysm unfit for open surgery and not suitable for custom-made fenestrated endograft. Since almost 1 in 5 patients undergo a reintervention within 3 years, features associated with higher risk of complications need to be investigated to tailor the follow-up schedule to each patient. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of mural thrombus in the pararenal aorta on perioperative and follow-up complications after ChEVAR. All consecutive patients undergoing ChEVAR at our center from 2015 to 2022 were included in this retrospective study. Collected variables included number of target vessels, stent graft size, presence, and severity of mural thrombus in pararenal aorta, which was reported with a scoring system from 0 to 10 based on thrombus type, thickness area, and circumferenceAnalyzed outcomes included perioperative and follow-up complications. Thirty-one patients underwent ChEVAR during the study period. In 4 patients the indication for ChEVAR was type 1A endoleak after a previous endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The number of target vessels was 1 in 17 patients (55%), 2 in 12 (39%), 3 in 1 (3%), and 4 in 1 (%). The mean mural thrombus score was 5.9. Complications were the following: type 1A endoleak in 4 cases (13%), chimney stent complications in 7 cases (23%) (including partial or total thrombosis, intrastent stenosis, displacement), renal function worsening during follow-up in 8 cases (26%). Overall survival was 90% at 2 years. Patients with severe mural thrombus showed lower freedom from ChEVAR-related complications (28% vs 59% at 2 years, p=0.023). The presence of severe pararenal aortic mural thrombus was associated with lower freedom from ChEVAR-related complications in patients undergoing ChEVAR for pararenal aortic aneurysm repair. Further research with a larger number of patients is required to confirm these results. The analysis of severity of mural thrombus in pararenal aorta, which was reported with a scoring system from 0 to 10 based on thrombus type, thickness area and circumference, can be useful and can be represent an important predictor element for complications in patient submitted to Chimney tecnique; in fact the presence of severe pararenal aortic mural thrombus was associated with lower freedom from ChEVAR-related complications in patients undergoing ChEVAR for pararenal aortic aneurysm repair. Then, in patient with pararenal aortic aneurysm, a preoperative evaluation could be focused on severity of mural thrombus to minimize the complications in ChEVAR tecnique or to change the surgical strategy.

Long-term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury: A 10 Year Multi-center Experience.

This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes in patients treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI). From January 2010 to December 2019, this retrospective observational study was conducted at 3 centers, involving 62 consecutive BTAI patients who underwent TEVAR. Computed tomography angiography scans were planned to be conducted at 6 months post-procedure, and annually thereafter. Technical success was achieved in all 62 procedures (100%), which included cases of dissection (n=35, 56.45%), pseudoaneurysm (n=20, 32.26%), and rupture (n=7, 11.29%). Mean injury severity score was 31.66±8.30. A total of 21 supra-arch branches were revascularized by chimney technique, with 12 cases involving the left subclavian artery (LSA) and 9 cases involving the left common carotid artery. In addition, 11 LSAs were covered during the procedure. The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.61% (n=1). The mean follow-up time was 86.82±30.58 months. The all-cause follow-up mortality rate was 3.28% (n=2). Stenosis or occlusion of 3 supra-arch branches (4.92%) was identified at follow-up, with 2 cases (3.28%) requiring re-intervention. No spinal cord ischemia, endoleak, or migration was observed. Despite only including patients with long-term follow-up, this study confirms the long-term safety and effectiveness of TEVAR for BTAI. For young BTAI patients, as the thoracic aorta increases with age, longer follow-up is needed to observe the potential mismatch between the endograft and the aorta. This study confirms the long-term safety and effectiveness of endovascular treatment for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI). For young BTAI patients, as the thoracic aorta increases with age, longer follow-up is needed to observe the potential mismatch between the endograft and the aorta. Through a remarkably extended follow-up period (86.82±30.58 months) conducted at multiple centers in China, this study confirms the long-term safety and effectiveness of endovascular treatment for BTAI.

Multicenter Outcome With the Chimney Technique After Urgent Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Multicenter Outcome With the Chimney Technique After Urgent Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Incidence of endoleak type IA in patients undergoing chimney endovascular aortic repair (ChEVAR) vs. standard endovascular repair.

Almost half of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures are performed in hostile anatomy, increasing the risk of procedure related complications such as type IA endoleaks, which may be prevented with the chimney technique in EVAR (ChEVAR). Our aim is to describe the differential characteristics between EVAR in favorable anatomy and ChEVAR in hostile necks. A cohort of patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) that were treated with EVAR or ChEVAR were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of type IA endoleak. Secondary outcomes were the rate of chimney occlusion, reintervention, migration, rupture, acute limb ischemia, sac growth, and aneurysm-related mortality during the follow-up period. . With a median follow-up of 11.5 months, 79 patients were treated with EVAR and 21 with ChEVAR. The overall age was 76.49 ± 7.32 years old, and 82% were male. The ChEVAR cohort had a higher prevalence of tobacco use than the EVAR cohort (38.1% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.041), and a shorter neck (7.88 mm ± 5.73 vs 36.28 mm ± 13.73, p<0.001). There were no differences in type IA endoleak incidence between the groups (a single endoleak type IA in the EVAR group, p = 0.309). One patient experienced an asymptomatic chimney occlusion in the ChEVAR group, and another patient required a reintervention due to chimney occlusion. Sac regression and reinterventions were not different between groups. There were no migration, rupture, acute limb ischemia, or aneurysm-related mortality events. . In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms, ChEVAR in hostile necks had similar event rates to EVAR in favorable necks.

Multilayer Flow Modulator Stent for Aortic Pathology: A Meta-Analysis and Additional Data from a Single-Centre Retrospective Cohort.

Thoracoabdominal aneurysms and aortic dissections are a challenge for vascular surgeons. Open surgery, fenestrated or branched endograft, and the chimney technique are not possible in some patients, because of comorbidities or anatomical restrictions. However, the multilayer flow modulator (MFM) can be implanted in some of these patients. In this systematic review, we will describe the experience with the multilayer stent. To augment the limited number of studies available, we will include a cohort of patients from our hospital. We retrieved data on all consecutive patients treated using the MFM between May 2013 and August 2020. This included patients with type B dissections and thoracoabdominal or thoracic aneurysms who were unfit for open surgery. The systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included all the studies that used the MFM in the aortic segment. Single-arm meta-analyses were performed using OpenMeta (Brown University, Providence, RI, USA). A total of 37 patients were treated in our hospital during the study period. The technical success was 97.3% and the 30-day mortality was 5.4%. In 40.5% of the included patients, the instructions for use were not followed. Off-label implantation was associated with a higher aneurysm-related mortality. A total of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis and the technical success was 97.8%. In 68.5%, the aneurysm sack or false lumen remained perfused, 97% of all the covered side branches remained patent. After a follow-up period of 1 year, five patients in the meta-analysis presented with a ruptured aneurysm. The overall quality of evidence is poor because long-term results are lacking, patients are frequently lost during follow-up and all the studies were non-comparative. Our retrospective study suggests a relatively low incidence of perioperative complications, although there was a high incidence of persistent perfusion in the aneurysm sac (102 of 149 patients). The risk of rupture at the 1-year follow-up was 2.1%.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Fenestrated and Chimney/Snorkel Techniques for Endovascular Repair of Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms.

Comparative effectiveness of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and chimney graft endovascular aneurysm repair (ChEVAR) for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms (JAAs) remains unclear. Our objective was to identify and analyze the current body of evidence comparing the effectiveness of both techniques for JAA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Register for Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, for randomized and non-randomized studies assessing outcomes of FEVAR and ChEVAR for JAA repair. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluations) certainty of evidence were performed in duplicate. Data were pooled statistically where possible. Nine retrospective cohort studies comparing the use of FEVAR and ChEVAR for juxtarenal aneurysm were included for meta-analysis. The FEVAR and ChEVAR arms of the meta-analysis consisted of 726 participants and 518 participants, respectively. There were 598 (86.8%) and 332 (81.6%) men in each arm. The mean diameter was larger in the ChEVAR arm (59 mm vs 52.5 mm). Both techniques had similar rates of postoperative 30-day mortality, 3.38% (8/237) versus 3.52% (8/227), acute kidney injury, 16.76% (31/185) versus 17.31% (18/104), and major adverse cardiac events, 7.30% (46/630) versus 6.60% (22/333). The meta-analysis supported the use of FEVAR for most outcomes, with significant advantage for technical success (odds ratio [OR]: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.24-8.42) and avoidance of type 1 endoleak (OR: 5.76, 95% CI: 1.94-17.08), but a disadvantage for spinal cord ischemia (OR: 10.21, 95% CI: 1.21-86.11), which had a very low number of events. The quality of evidence was "moderate" for most outcomes. Both endovascular techniques had good safety profiles. The evidence does not support superiority of either FEVAR or ChEVAR for JAA. While lack of equipoise has hampered the design of randomised trials of open versus endovascular repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms, concern about the durability of endovascular repair highlights the need for stronger evidence of the comparative efficacy of endovascular techniques. This review performed meta-analysis and evidence appraisal of recent data from large observational studies comparing fenestrated and chimney techniques, using a comprehensive outcome set. Superiority of either intervention could not be established due to differences in participants' baseline risk in each study arm. However, data suggests that both techniques are safe and suitable for use when indicated.

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Using the Chimney Technique in Redo Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients with a Small Mitral Annulus.

The outcomes of redo mitral valve replacement (Re-MVR) in a small mitral annulus with the use of the chimney technique are not well documented. The purpose of this study is to present our early experience with this group of patients, illustrating the periop-erative complications and mortality outcomes. From 2019 to 2020, 77 consecutive patients underwent Re-MVR with the use of the chimney technique because of a small mitral annulus. To evaluate heart structural integrity and clinical outcomes, postoperative clinical data and echocardiograms were examined. The mean age was 56.7 ± 15.98 years. All patients underwent mitral valve surgery, of which 62 were mitral valve replacements, 7 mitral valve repairs, and 8 double valve replacements. The preoperative mitral valve mean gradient was 18.07 ± 9.40 mmHg, and the postoperative mitral prosthesis size was 28.51 ± 1.22 mm. The median increment of mitral size enlargement was 4 (0, 6) valve sizes. The mean mitral gradient coming out of the operating room was 10.34 ± 2.12 mmHg, and at the follow-up echocardiogram performed at 3 years after the procedure, it was 10.36 ± 1.70 mmHg. One-year survival was 93.3%, while the 4-year survival rate was 89.3%, with no reoperation. The use of the chimney technique in small mitral valve re-mitral valve replacement results in larger valve sizes. Moreover, the mean gradients over the mitral valve are acceptable both intraoperatively and over time.

Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms: a review of radiological and clinical assessment, endovascular interventions, and current evidence of management outcomes.

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an established approach to treating abdominal aortic aneurysms, however, challenges arise when the aneurysm involves visceral branches with insufficient normal segment of the aorta to provide aneurysm seal without excluding those vessels. To overcome this, a range of technological developments and solutions have been proposed including fenestrated, branched, physician-modified stents, and chimney techniques. Understanding the currently available evidence for each option is essential to select the most suitable procedure for each patient. Overall, the evidence for fenestrated endovascular repair is the most comprehensive of these techniques and shows an early post-operative advantage over open surgical repair (OSR) but with a catch-up mortality in the mid-term period. In this review, we will describe these endovascular options, pre- and post-procedure radiological assessment and current evidence of outcomes.

Saccular aneurism of the aortic arch: endovascular treatment with the chimney technique landing in zone 0

Saccular aneurism of the aortic arch: endovascular treatment with the chimney technique landing in zone 0

Outcomes of Clampless Real Chimney Technique with Dacron Graft and Sleeve Banding of the Ascending Aorta for Total Debranching Endovascular Arch Repair

Background: Hybrid aortic arch repair with debranching of the supra-aortic vessels carries a high risk of cerebral infarction and fatal complications associated with side clamping of the ascending aorta. A previous study had reported the “real chimney” technique, a novel method for clamp-free total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the ascending aortic sleeve banding with dacron. In this study, we aim to build upon this foundation by presenting our experience with the early and midterm outcomes of this technique. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 61 consecutive older adult patients with aortic arch pathologies and a high risk of open repair who underwent total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the real chimney technique at our institution between January 2014 and June 2022. This technique was used to anastomose the ascending aorta with the main trunk of the triple-branched prosthetic graft. Results: The mean patient age was 75.1 years, and 54% of patients were transferred from medical facilities with cardiothoracic surgery departments. The comorbidities included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49.2%), chronic kidney disease (63.9%), coronary artery disease (27.9%), and history of stroke (31.1%). No 30-day mortality was observed. Complications included postoperative renal failure requiring permanent hemodialysis (4; 6.6%), stroke (modified Rankin scale score: ≥2 in 5; 8.2%), permanent paraplegia (1; 1.6%), and permanent paraparesis (4; 6.6%). The median follow-up period was 40.5±28.5 months. The postoperative survival rates at 5 years were 66.8%. No patients experienced complications associated with the aorta or anastomosis site; only 1 patient required an additional procedure for stenosis of the anastomosis site (midterm). An aneurysmal diameter reduction of ≥3 mm was observed in 37 cases (60.7%), and the mean aneurysmal diameter reduction was 5.3 mm. Conclusions: The postoperative outcome of total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic arch repair is not only acceptable but also promising, particularly in patients at high risk of open repair. Clinical Impact Our novel real chimney technique for total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair of aortic arch pathologies in patients who were at a high-risk for open repair resulted in no 30-day mortality and no complications related to the aorta or the real chimney anastomosis site. The real chimney technique is effective for managing aortic arch pathologies and enables less invasive total debranching thoracic endovascular aortic arch repair without the need for extracorporeal circulation and clamping of the ascending aorta

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection with aberrant right subclavian artery: a single-center retrospective study.

To evaluate the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) with aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA). A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with TBAD and ARSA who underwent TEVAR between the period of January 2017 and December 2022. Patient demographics, computed tomography angiography (CTA) measurements, surgical procedures, and postoperative outcomes were reviewed. A total of 9 patients (6 males and 3 females) were included in the study. 4 ARSA were reconstructed, 3 by periscope technique and 1 by in vitro fenestration technique. 3 left subclavian arteries (LSA) were reconstructed, 1 by the chimney technique and 2 by the single-branched stent technique. 2 patients underwent reconstruction of both ARSA and LSA. The overall technical success rate was 100%, with no occurrences of stroke, paraplegia, or mortality within 30 days. 1 patient experienced immediate type Ia endoleak, which resolved after 3 months. 1 patient developed weakness in the right upper limb, while 1 patient presented mild subclavian steal syndrome (SSS); both cases showed recovery during follow-up. The average follow-up duration was 35.6 ± 11.1 months, during which no reinterventions, deaths, or strokes were observed. Our limited experience involving 9 patients demonstrates that early and mid-term outcomes of TEVAR for the treatment of TBAD with ARSA are satisfactory.

Outcomes of Castor Single-Branched Stent Graft for Reconstruction of Multiple Supra-Aortic Branches in Aortic Arch Disease.

To report the outcomes of a combination of Castor single-branched stent grafts with other techniques for the reconstruction of multiple supra-aortic branches in aortic arch disease. Between December 2019 and December 2021, 20 patients with aortic arch disease underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) at our institution using a Castor single-branched stent graft combined with the fenestration, chimney, or bypass techniques. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is indicated for complicated or acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD), nonruptured aneurysms with a maximum aneurysm diameter >5.5 cm or showing rapidly expanded, ruptured, or threatened aneurysms, and penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with a maximal aortic diameter >5.5 cm or with PAUs >10 mm deep or >20 mm in diameter. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative clinical data were recorded. The median age of the patients was 56 (range=52-69 years) years, and 19 patients were men. Seven patients underwent the Castor single-branched stent graft and left common carotid artery (LCCA) chimney technique, 8 patients underwent the Castor single-branched stent graft and fenestration technique, and 5 patients underwent the Castor single-branched stent graft and bypass technique. The technical success rate was 100%. Major adverse events included 2 endoleaks, 1 spinal cord ischemia, and 1 early-stage retrograde type A aortic dissection. No cerebral stroke-related complications were observed. The mortality rate was 10% (2/20 patients). One patient with thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) died because of a sudden decrease in oxygen saturation and blood pressure after surgery. Relatives declined autopsy, and the cause of death was not determined. Another patient died of a retrograde type A dissection after surgery. The median follow-up period was 6 months (range=3.5-12 months). During follow-up, 1 patient with type I endoleak underwent thoracotomy again after a year. The remaining patients recovered well. The combination of a Castor single-branched stent graft with fenestration, chimney, or bypass techniques may be an effective treatment for preserving multiple supra-aortic branches in aortic arch disease. This study introduced three methods of reconstruction of multiple supra-aortic branches using a Castor single-branched stent graft (Castor single-branched stent graft combined with fenestration, chimney, or bypass technique) and analysed their advantages and shortcomings to provide experience for the future treatment of aortic arch diseases.

Comparison of Chimney and Fenestrated Techniques for Supra-Aortic Branch Revascularization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To compare the technical and clinical outcomes of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F-TEVAR) and chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (CH-EVAR) of aortic disease. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies on the management of thoracic aortic pathologies using chimney or fenestrated techniques published between 2000 and 2022. Individual studies provided at least one of the following essential outcomes: technical success, immediate and follow-up type I endoleak, 30-day and aorta-related mortality, cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency. 24 chimney (1106 patients) and 21 fenestrated technique studies (1040 patients) were included. The scope of the study encompassed various thoracic aortic conditions, such as thoracic aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic ulcer, and other thoracic aortic diseases. Technical success was defined as the handling of the principal ailment affecting the aorta, devoid of any instances of complications. The technical success rates were higher in fenestrated group compared with chimney group (98.0% vs. 95.8% p < 0.001), and the rate of type I endoleak either immediately or during follow-up was higher in the chimney technique group (9.3% vs. 1.3% p < 0.001, 4.0% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). The chimney technique group had higher 30-day mortality and aorta-related mortality than those in the fenestrated technique group (2.1% vs. 0.3% p < 0.001, 0.4% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). Morbidity rates of cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency were same in both groups (2.2% vs. 1.1% p = 0.116, 98.2% vs. 99.4% p = 0.094). The chimney technique group had longer operative time (110.0min vs. 90.8min p < 0.001). Two groups had same fluoroscopy time (34.0min vs. 33.4min p = 0.614). The finding suggest that both the chimney and fenestrated techniques are efficacious in supra-aortic branch reconstruction. However, the fenestrated technique exhibits potential superiority as an interventional strategy, as it demonstrates a lower incidence of type 1 Endoleak, 30-day mortality, and aorta-related death following TEVAR.

Safety and Efficacy of Inner Branched Stent-Graft in the Treatment of Aortic Arch Disease: A Systematic Review.

To provide a descriptive overview on the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular arch repair with inner branched endoprosthesis (bTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies. A comprehensive literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Pre-defined search terms were used to interrogate PubMed and OVID Medline databases from January 1999 to July 2022. Patient characteristics, indication for treatment, procedural data, mortality rates, postoperative complications, and reintervention rate during follow-up were evaluated. Nineteen articles were included, encompassing a total of 618 patients who received bTEVAR, most of which were double-branched (63.9%, n=395). The main indication for treatment was aneurysm secondary to chronic aortic dissection (38.8%, n=240/618) with a mean maximum diameter of 58.3±11.4 mm. Pooled mean technical success rate was 97.4±4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=95.1%-99.5%); 2 and 3 patients required conversion to chimney technique and open repair, respectively. Among the pooled rates of early complications, postoperative stroke was the highest (10.5%; 95% CI=6.8%-14.3%). Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 5.5% (95% CI=2.6%-9.7%). Forty patients (6.5%; 95% CI=2.5%-9.5%) required early reintervention. During a mean follow-up of 20.7±13.5 months, the mortality rate was 18.2% (n=108/593; 95% CI=8.6%-20.6%) where 12 (11.1%) were aortic-related. Pooled late reintervention rate was 9.6% (95% CI=4.8%-14.3%). Comparison of demographics and outcomes found no significant difference between single and double bTEVAR. Branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising approach for aortic arch pathologies with a high technical success rate despite a steep learning curve. However, contemporary outcomes reflect that postoperative stroke remains the predominant concern. Further experience and long-term follow-up are required to sufficiently elucidate the safety and durability of bTEVAR in the management of aortic pathologies for high-risk patients. This systematic review summarized the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with different inner branched stent-grafts for the management of aortic arch pathologies. Pooled results from nineteen studies with 618 patients demonstrated a high technical success rate and an acceptable mortality rate. However, postoperative stroke remains the major concern. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate its durability.