Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Nov;66(5):1602-1610.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.06.100. Epub 2017 Aug 26.

A current systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of chimney graft technology in aortic arch diseases.

Author information

1
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: waelsahmad@gmail.com.
2
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to provide a review of the literature on the use of chimney graft (CG) technique in treating arterial diseases of the aortic arch and to extrapolate conclusions by summarizing the reported outcomes in a meta-analysis.

METHODS:

An extensive electronic search was made using PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct Databases, and the Cochrane Library. Included in this meta-analysis were all papers published up to February 2016 on endovascular chimney technique in the arch vessels with or without adjunct extra-anatomic debranching, in any language, providing data about at least one of the essential outcomes: early and late type I endoleak, 30-day mortality rate, development of perioperative stroke, patency, and retrograde aortic dissection.

RESULTS:

Of the 478 reports yielded by the electronic search, a total of 11 publications (on 373 patients and 387 CGs) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. The overall estimated proportion of technical success was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.4%-94.0%). Of the 373 patients, 26 (7%) experienced a type Ia endoleak in the perioperative period. The overall estimated proportion of early type Ia endoleak was 9.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-13.4%). Among the 10 studies that provided data, a retrograde type A dissection was observed in 2 of 351 patients, resulting in an overall estimated proportion of 1.8% (95% CI, 0.8%-4.0%). The pooled 30-day mortality rate was 7.9% (95% CI, 4.6%-13.2%). The pooled estimation for reintervention was 10.6% (95% CI, 5%-21%); for major stroke, 2.6% (95% CI, 1.3%-5.0%); for early patency, 97.9% (95% CI, 95.8%-99%); and for late patency, 92.9% (95% CI, 87.3%-96%).

CONCLUSIONS:

Treatment of aortic diseases involving the aortic arch poses a great challenge. The CG technique has been applied as an alternative treatment option. This meta-analysis shows that endovascular repair of aortic arch disease using a CG technique in the aortic arch vessels is technically feasible and effective but not without major risk of complications.

PMID:
28847663
DOI:
10.1016/j.jvs.2017.06.100
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center