Search

Objective The ideal stent combination for chimney endovascular aneurysm repair remains undetermined. Therefore, we sought to identify optimal aortic and chimney stent combinations that are associated with the best outcomes by analyzing the worldwide collected experience in the PERformance of chImney technique for the treatment of Complex aortic pathoLogiES (PERICLES) registry. Methods The PERICLES registry was reviewed for patients with pararenal aortic disease electively treated from 2008 to 2014. Eleven different aortic devices were identified with three distinct subgroups: group A (n = 224), nitinol/polyester; group B (n = 105), stainless steel/polyester; and group C (n = 69), nitinol/expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. The various chimney stent subtypes included the balloon-expandable covered stent (BECS), self-expanding covered stent, and bare-metal stent. Deidentified aortic and chimney device combinations were compared for risk of chimney occlusion, type IA endoleak, and survival. Effects of high-volume centers (>100 cases), use of an internal lining chimney stent, number of chimney stents, and number of chimney stent subtypes deployed were also considered. We considered demographics, comorbidities, and aortic anatomic features as potential confounders in all models. Results The 1- and 3-year freedom from BECS chimney occlusion was not different between groups (group A, 96% ± 2% and 87% ± 5%; groups B and C, 93% ± 3% and 76% ± 10%; Cox model, P = .33). Similarly, when non-BECS chimney stents were used, no difference in occlusion risk was noted for the three aortic device groupings; however, group C patients receiving BECS did have a trend toward higher occlusion risk relative to group C patients not receiving a BECS chimney stent (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-18.84; P = .08). Patients receiving multiple chimney stents, irrespective of stent subtype, had a 1.8-fold increased risk of occlusion for each additional stent (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.9; P = .01). Use of a bare-metal endolining stent doubled the occlusion hazard (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.0-4.5; P = .05). Risk of type IA endoleak (intraoperatively and postoperatively) did not significantly differ for the aortic devices with BECS use; however, group C patients had higher risk relative to groups A/B without BECS (C vs B: odds ratio [OR], 3.2 [95% CI, 1-11; P = .05]; C vs A/B: OR, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.9-6.4; P = .08]). Patients treated at high-volume centers had significantly lower odds for development of type IA endoleak (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; P = .01) irrespective of aortic or chimney device combination. Mortality risk was significantly higher in group C + BECS vs group A + BECS (HR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.6-17.5; P = .006). The 1- and 3-year survival for groups A, B, and C (+BECS) was as follows: group A, 97% ± 1% and 92% ± 3%; group B, 93% ± 3% and 83% ± 7%; and group C, 84% ± 7% and 63% ± 14%. Use of more than one chimney subtype was associated with increased mortality (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.4-7.5; P = .006). Conclusions Within the PERICLES registry, use of nitinol/polyester stent graft devices with BECS during chimney endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with improved survival compared with other aortic endografts. However, this advantage was not observed for non-BECS repairs. Repairs incorporating multiple chimney subtypes were also associated with increased mortality risk. Importantly, increasing chimney stent number and bare-metal endolining stents increase chimney occlusion risk, whereas patients treated at low-volume centers have higher risk of type IA endoleak.

Objective Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with the chimney technique (ch-EVAR) has been used for the treatment of aortic aneurysms as an alternative approach to fenestrated endografting or open repair. Nonetheless, the need for an upper extremity arterial access may contribute to a higher risk for periprocedural cerebrovascular events. This study reports on the perioperative cerebral and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after ch-EVAR. Methods The PERICLES registry (PERformance of the chImney technique for the treatment of Complex aortic pathoLogiES) is an international, retrospective multicenter study evaluating the performance of ch-EVAR for the treatment of complex aortic pathologies. For the purpose of the current analysis, 425 patients treated by ch-EVAR between 2008 and 2014 were included. The primary outcome of this analysis was the incidence of procedure related cerebrovascular events defined as transient ischemic attack or stroke. The secondary end point was in-hospital MACCE, including acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and death of any cause. Results The incidence of clinical relevant cerebrovascular events was 1.9% (8/425). A postoperative transient ischemic attack was observed in four patients (0.95%) and a stroke in additional four (0.95%). Three patients died during the hospital stay secondary to sequelae from postoperative stroke. A prior history of stroke/transient ischemic attack, atrial fibrillation, previous carotid revascularization, or known carotid artery disease did not significantly increase the risk for adverse neurologic events. The overall MACCE rate amounted to 8.5% (36/425). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the use of bilateral upper extremity access (odds ratio [OR], 2.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-7.45]), aneurysm rupture (OR, 5.33; 95% CI, 1.74-16.33), and a prolonged operation time (>290 minutes; OR, 1.005; 95% CI, 1.001-1.008) were associated with a significantly increased risk for MACCE. Conclusions This analysis demonstrates that ch-EVAR is associated with a relatively low rate of cerebrovascular events. However, a postoperative stroke is associated with increased mortality. Ruptured aneurysms, bilateral upper extremity access as in case of multiple chimney graft placement, and longer operative times were identified as independent risk factors for MACCE.