Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare outcomes of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair using a chimney technique (ch-EVAR) versus standard EVAR (st-EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Does chimney endovascular aortic repair (ch-EVAR) improve outcomes compared to standard EVAR in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Does chimney endovascular aortic repair (ch-EVAR) improve outcomes compared to standard EVAR in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Chimney EVAR for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms demonstrates comparable early and midterm outcomes to standard EVAR, suggesting it is a feasible strategy for juxtarenal RAAAs.
Supports ch-EVAR feasibility for juxtarenal ruptured AAA; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
PURPOSE: 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). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: = 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. CONCLUSION: 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.Clinical ImpactThis 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takeuchi et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: