Background: Endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions requires revascularization of epiaortic vessels in case of coverage. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical bypass versus endovascular reconstruction with a chimney graft. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a multicenter register between January 2005 and December 2019 was performed. A total of 127 patients were included and divided into 2 groups: thoracic endovascular aortic repair + surgical debranching (n = 72) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair + chimney stenting (n = 55). The main end points were major neurologic sequelae and type IA endoleak. Propensity score matching was performed to analyse baseline variables related to these outcomes. Results: The mean follow-up was 35.6 months for the debranching group and 34.1 for the chimney group (P = 0.65). The incidence of stroke was higher in the chimney group although not statistically significant (7.3% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.46); for both groups, a wide angle between the ostium of the target vessel and the aorta and landing in Ishimaru Zone 0 was found to be the main predictors for major neurologic sequelae (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003, respectively). During follow-up, 9 (12.5%) type IA endoleaks occurred in the debranching group and 12 (21.8%) in the chimney group (P = 0.14). Aortic diameter larger than 66 mm and arch angle >46 degrees had a strong association with proximal endoleak incidence (P = 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively) Conclusions: Surgical debranching showed better results than chimney stenting in terms of major neurologic events incidence and type IA endoleak, although the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. Further research with larger cohorts is needed to establish the indications for these procedures.

Chimney Stenting Versus Surgical Debranching for the Treatment of Aortic Arch Pathologies-A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Covic, Tea
Secondo
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
Leone, Nicola
Formal Analysis
;
2023

Abstract

Background: Endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions requires revascularization of epiaortic vessels in case of coverage. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical bypass versus endovascular reconstruction with a chimney graft. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a multicenter register between January 2005 and December 2019 was performed. A total of 127 patients were included and divided into 2 groups: thoracic endovascular aortic repair + surgical debranching (n = 72) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair + chimney stenting (n = 55). The main end points were major neurologic sequelae and type IA endoleak. Propensity score matching was performed to analyse baseline variables related to these outcomes. Results: The mean follow-up was 35.6 months for the debranching group and 34.1 for the chimney group (P = 0.65). The incidence of stroke was higher in the chimney group although not statistically significant (7.3% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.46); for both groups, a wide angle between the ostium of the target vessel and the aorta and landing in Ishimaru Zone 0 was found to be the main predictors for major neurologic sequelae (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003, respectively). During follow-up, 9 (12.5%) type IA endoleaks occurred in the debranching group and 12 (21.8%) in the chimney group (P = 0.14). Aortic diameter larger than 66 mm and arch angle >46 degrees had a strong association with proximal endoleak incidence (P = 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively) Conclusions: Surgical debranching showed better results than chimney stenting in terms of major neurologic events incidence and type IA endoleak, although the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. Further research with larger cohorts is needed to establish the indications for these procedures.
2023
Gennai, Stefano; Covic, Tea; Leone, Nicola; Xodo, Andrea; Antonello, Michele; Tusini, Nicola; Silingardi, Roberto
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/917501
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact