Key result
Fenestrated TEVAR is linked to ~92% fewer type I endoleaks and less branch occlusion vs chimney TEVAR.
Why the study?
Midterm outcomes of TEVAR using chimney grafts compared to physician-made back-table fenestrations for thoracic aortic dissection and aneurysm required evaluation.
Does f-TEVAR improve outcomes compared to ch-TEVAR in patients with thoracic aortic diseases?
Cohort (n=474)
Does f-TEVAR improve outcomes compared to ch-TEVAR in patients with thoracic aortic diseases?
Both f-TEVAR and ch-TEVAR are viable options for thoracic aortic diseases, but f-TEVAR demonstrates more favorable outcomes regarding branch occlusion and type I endoleaks.
Midterm ch-TEVAR versus f-TEVAR outcomes in TAD/TAA remain uncertain; leaves open comparative durability and technique selection pending prospective trials.
Purpose: To evaluate the midterm outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using chimney grafts (ch-TEVAR) or thoracic stent-grafts with fenestrations made on the back table (f-TEVAR) to treat thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) and thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 474 consecutive patients (mean age 62.3±10.7 years; 346 men) treated with either f-TEVAR (n=110) or ch-TEVAR (n=364) for 352 TADs (81 f-TEVAR and 271 ch-TEVAR) or 122 TAAs (29 f-TEVAR and 93 ch-TEVAR) from 2008 to 2016. The primary endpoints at 30 days and during follow-up were overall mortality, aorta-related mortality, and major complications. The secondary endpoints were endoleak and reintervention. The patency of the target branches, cost of hospitalization, and the use of antiplatelet drugs were also analyzed. Results: Intraoperative type I endoleaks were treated in 69 (14.6%) cases (4 f-TEVAR and 65 ch-TEVAR, p<0.01) to achieve 100% technical success. Four (0.8%) patients died within 30 days [1 (0.9%) f-TEVAR and 3 (0.8%) ch-TEVAR]. Perioperative cerebral ischemia (1 fatal stroke) occurred in 9 (1.9%) patients: (1 f-TEVAR and 8 ch-TEVAR, p=0.39). During the mean follow-up of 50.6±20.0 months (49.5±18.3 months in f-TEVAR and 50.9±20.6 months in ch-TEVAR), 11 (2.3%) patients died of an aorta-related event. Type I endoleak was present in 40 (8.4%) patients (1 f-TEVAR and 39 ch-TEVAR, p<0.01). Eleven (2.3%) patients experienced stent-graft migration and 13 (2.7%) had a retrograde dissection. One hundred (16.9%) of the 593 branch stents occluded (4/75 in the f-TEVAR group and 96/518 in the ch-TEVAR group, p<0.01). The branch reintervention rate was 7.2% (34/474). The f-TEVAR group had a significantly higher probability of freedom from branch occlusion (92%) than the ch-TEVAR group (83%, p=0.007). Conclusion: Off-the-shelf techniques employing chimney grafts and homemade fenestrations are both suitable options for TAD and TAA involving the supra-aortic branches, with a low incidence of reintervention. Fenestrated TEVAR seems to have more favorable short- and midterm outcomes. Further study of these off-the-shelf techniques for aortic arch repair is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) and thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n=474). Fenestrated TEVAR (f-TEVAR) vs. Chimney TEVAR (ch-TEVAR) was evaluated on Overall mortality, aorta-related mortality, and major complications at 30 days and during follow-up. Fenestrated TEVAR had a higher probability of freedom from branch occlusion (92% vs 83%, p=0.007) and lower follow-up type I endoleak (0.9% vs 10.7%, p<0.01) compared to chimney TEVAR.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: