Monocentric Evaluation of Chimney Versus Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair for Juxtarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: With approval of on-label fenestrated (F-) endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), concerns regarding long-term patency and endoleaks (ELs) after chimney graft (CG)-EVAR were raised. To add supportive data on the value of this technique, we chose to report the midterm results of CG-EVAR in a single center with standardized methods and to compare them to F-EVAR.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data from January 2010 to January 2015 was conducted, and patients with excessive comorbidities for open repair treated by CG-EVAR or F-EVAR were included.

RESULTS: Ninety patients were treated by F-EVAR (88 men, 198 targets vessels) and 31 by CG-EVAR (26 men, 39 targets vessels, 12.9% treated in emergency; P = 0.001). Mean age was significantly higher in the CG group (71.3 ± 8.2 years in the FG group vs. 75.3 ± 6.6; P = 0.02), and there were significantly more patients suffering from preoperative chronic kidney disease (CKD) (13 [14.4%] treated by F-EVAR vs. 12 [38.7%]; P = 0.009). Target vessels were successfully reconstructed in 99.0% (196/198 target vessels) vs. 97.4% (38/39 target vessels) of cases (P = 0.3). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher after CG-EVAR (3.3% vs. 16.1%; P = 0.03). Incidence of acute kidney injury and CKD did not differ significantly between both groups. At 12 and 24 months, overall survival was 91.4% after F-EVAR vs. 82.1% and 81.8% vs. 69.0% (P = 0.4), estimated freedom from aneurysm related reintervention was 93.3% vs. 82.1% and 84.9% vs. 82.1% (P = 0.6), and target vessel's primary patency rate was 97.5% vs. 89.9% (P = 0.06), respectively. Freedom from type I EL's survival was significantly higher after F-EVAR at 12 and 24 months (100% vs. 89.0% and 97.7% vs. 89.0%; P = 0.01), but aneurysm maximum transverse diameter decrease did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS: There are potential advantages to CG-EVAR with off-the-shelf availability, versatility, and low-profile devices. In this series, patients treated by CG-EVAR showed promising and durable midterm results compared with F-EVAR. CG-EVAR and F-EVAR should not be apprehended as opposed strategies but more as complementary ones, while the best indications for CG-EVAR are clarified.