Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Chimney and Fenestrated Techniques for Supra-Aortic Branch Revascularization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Review
  • Arterial Interventions
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the technical and clinical outcomes of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F-TEVAR) and chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (CH-EVAR) of aortic disease.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies on the management of thoracic aortic pathologies using chimney or fenestrated techniques published between 2000 and 2022. Individual studies provided at least one of the following essential outcomes: technical success, immediate and follow-up type I endoleak, 30-day and aorta-related mortality, cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency.

Results

24 chimney (1106 patients) and 21 fenestrated technique studies (1040 patients) were included. The scope of the study encompassed various thoracic aortic conditions, such as thoracic aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic ulcer, and other thoracic aortic diseases. Technical success was defined as the handling of the principal ailment affecting the aorta, devoid of any instances of complications. The technical success rates were higher in fenestrated group compared with chimney group (98.0% vs. 95.8% p < 0.001), and the rate of type I endoleak either immediately or during follow-up was higher in the chimney technique group (9.3% vs. 1.3% p < 0.001, 4.0% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). The chimney technique group had higher 30-day mortality and aorta-related mortality than those in the fenestrated technique group (2.1% vs. 0.3% p < 0.001, 0.4% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). Morbidity rates of cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency were same in both groups (2.2% vs. 1.1% p = 0.116, 98.2% vs. 99.4% p = 0.094). The chimney technique group had longer operative time (110.0 min vs. 90.8 min p < 0.001). Two groups had same fluoroscopy time (34.0 min vs. 33.4 min p = 0.614).

Conclusions

The finding suggest that both the chimney and fenestrated techniques are efficacious in supra-aortic branch reconstruction. However, the fenestrated technique exhibits potential superiority as an interventional strategy, as it demonstrates a lower incidence of type 1 Endoleak, 30-day mortality, and aorta-related death following TEVAR.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Olsson C, et al. Thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection: increasing prevalence and improved outcomes reported in a nationwide population-based study of more than 14,000 cases from 1987 to 2002. Circulation. 2006;114(24):2611–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhu S, et al. Acute aortic dissection in young adult patients: clinical characteristics, management, and perioperative outcomes. J Invest Surg. 2020;33(3):211–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Matsumura JS, et al. International controlled clinical trial of thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair with the Zenith TX2 endovascular graft: 1-year results. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47(2):247–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldfinger JZ, et al. Thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(16):1725–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Manning BJ, Ivancev K. Techniques for supra-aortic trunk preservation in thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair. Acta Chir Belg. 2010;110(1):112–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Appoo JJ, et al. Thoracic aortic frontier: review of current applications and directions of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Can J Cardiol. 2014;30(1):52–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Slim K, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shu C, et al. Endovascular treatment for aortic arch pathologies: chimney, on-the-table fenestration, and in-situ fenestration techniques. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(4):1437–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang J, et al. Endovascular aortic repairs combined with looping-chimney technique for repairing aortic arch lesions and reconstructing left common carotid artery. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(5):2270–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Shu C, et al. Early results of a novel gutter-free chimney stent-graft system to treat aortic arch dissection: single-center data from a prospective clinical trial. J Endovasc Ther. 2022;29(2):258–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gehringhoff B, et al. Use of chimney grafts in aortic arch pathologies involving the supra-aortic branches. J Endovasc Ther. 2011;18(5):650–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ahmad W, et al. Long-term outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair using chimney grafts for aortic arch pathologies: 10 years of single-center experience. Ann Vasc Surg. 2021;72:400–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shu C, et al. Early results of left carotid chimney technique in endovascular repair of acute non-a-non-B aortic dissections. J Endovasc Ther. 2011;18(4):477–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mangialardi N, et al. Chimney technique for aortic arch pathologies: an 11-year single-center experience. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21(2):312–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Xue Y, et al. The chimney technique for preserving the left subclavian artery in thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47(4):623–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhu Y, et al. The single-centre experience of the supra-arch chimney technique in endovascular repair of type B aortic dissections. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;45(6):633–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Huang C, et al. Early results of chimney technique for type B aortic dissections extending to the aortic arch. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39(1):28–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zou J, et al. Early- and mid-term results of the chimney technique in the repair of aortic arch pathologies. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39(11):1550–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu H, et al. Endovascular aortic repair combined with chimney technique in the treatment of stanford type B aortic dissection involving aortic arch. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29(4):758–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahmad W, et al. A shorter aortic arch sealing ring (<10 mm) distal to the most distal chimney seems to be an additional important factor contributing to a gutter endoleak in aortic arch tevar. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;61:116–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bi J, et al. Midterm outcomes of fenestrated TEVAR using physician-modified endovascular grafts for zone 2. Vascular. 2022;30(3):432–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bosiers MJ, et al. European multicenter registry for the performance of the chimney/snorkel technique in the treatment of aortic arch pathologic conditions. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(6):2224–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Canaud L, et al. Homemade fenestrated stent-graft for thoracic endovascular aortic repair of zone 2 aortic lesions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155(2):488–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ding H, et al. Outcomes of chimney technique for preservation of the left subclavian artery in type B aortic dissection. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57(3):374–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Falkensammer J, et al. Assessment of pull-out forces in tevar and anaconda fevar combination and early clinical results: creation of a proximal landing zone for fevar in patients with extent I and extent IV TAAAs. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;66:160–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Li X, et al. Early experience and technical aspects of physician-modified fenestration in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic arch pathologies. J Int Med Res. 2020;48(2):300060519870903.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Li X, et al. Self-radiopaque markers guiding physician-modified fenestration (S-fenestration) in aortic arch endovascular repair. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:713301.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Piffaretti G, et al. Comparison of two different techniques for isolated left subclavian artery revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair in zone 2. J Endovasc Ther. 2018;25(6):740–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shahverdyan R, et al. Single-center mid-term experience with chimney-graft technique for the preservation of flow to the supra-aortic branches. Vascular. 2018;26(2):175–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sun G, et al. Long-term outcome of chimney technique using a balloon-expandable bare-metal stent to preserve supra-arch branches in type B aortic dissection. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;54(4):333–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tan GWL, et al. Early experience and lessons learnt with customized fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic reconstruction for aortic arch pathology in an Asian population. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41(4):544–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tsilimparis N, et al. Branched versus fenestrated endografts for endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions. J Vasc Surg. 2016;64(3):592–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang L, et al. Application of triple-chimney technique using C-TAG and viabahn or excluder iliac extension in tevar treatment of aortic arch dilation diseases. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(6):3783–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang T, et al. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with single/double chimney technique for aortic arch pathologies. J Endovasc Ther. 2017;24(3):383–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang T, et al. First experience with the double chimney technique in the treatment of aortic arch diseases. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66(4):1018–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. XiaoHui M, et al. Comparison of supra-arch in situ fenestration and chimney techniques for aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery. Vascular. 2019;27(2):153–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhang H, et al. Comparison of chimney technique and single-branched stent graft for treating patients with type B aortic dissections that involved the left subclavian artery. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42(5):648–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang R, et al. Inducing false lumen thrombosis for retrograde type A aortic dissection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153(1):57–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhu J, et al. Fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair using physician-modified stent grafts (PMSGs) in zone 0 and zone 1 for aortic arch diseases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42(1):19–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhu J, et al. Fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair using physician modified stent grafts for acute type B aortic dissection with unfavourable landing zone. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;55(2):170–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bai J, et al. Mid-term results of in situ fenestration stented with balloon-expandable bare metal stents during thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;95(6):1163–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Canaud L, et al. Total arch thoracic endovascular aortic repair using double fenestrated physician-modified stent-grafts: 100 patients. J Endovasc Ther. 2022;596:15266028221116748.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Chastant R, et al. Homemade fenestrated physician-modified stent grafts for arch aortic degenerative aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2022;76(5):1133–11402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Luo M, et al. Midterm results of retrograde in situ needle fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair of aortic arch pathologies. J Endovasc Ther. 2021;28(1):36–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Qin J, et al. Laser fenestration of aortic arch stent grafts for endovascular treatment of retrograde type A dissection. Int J Cardiol. 2021;328:69–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yan D, et al. Outcomes of emergency in situ laser fenestration-assisted thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection unfit for open surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71(5):1472–14791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Li C, et al. Early and midterm outcomes of in situ laser fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and subacute aortic arch diseases and analysis of its complications. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(5):1524–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shu X, et al. Midterm outcomes of an adjustable puncture device for in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2022;63(1):43–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhao Z, et al. In situ laser stent graft fenestration of the left subclavian artery during thoracic endovascular repair of type B aortic dissection with limited proximal landing zones: 5-year outcomes. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020;31(8):1321–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chuter TA, et al. Endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47(1):6–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. McWilliams RG, et al. In situ stent-graft fenestration to preserve the left subclavian artery. J Endovasc Ther. 2004;11(2):170–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang L, et al. Off-the-shelf devices for treatment of thoracic aortic diseases: midterm follow-up of tevar with chimneys or physician-made fenestrations. J Endovasc Ther. 2020;27(1):132–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Donas KP, et al. Collected world experience about the performance of the snorkel/chimney endovascular technique in the treatment of complex aortic pathologies: the PERICLES registry. Ann Surg. 2015;262(3):546–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Chassin-Trubert L, et al. Midterm follow-up of fenestrated and scalloped physician-modified endovascular grafts for zone 2 tevar. J Endovasc Ther. 2020;27(3):377–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kurimoto Y, et al. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for challenging aortic arch diseases using fenestrated stent grafts from zone 0. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(1):24–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (G. Nos. 82170507, 81970402 and 81800407).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Vascular and Thyroid Surgery, The First Hospital, China Medical University, 155 Nanjing Bei St, Shenyang, China

    Mingyu Liu, Song Wu, Xinyang Li, Shijie Xin & Jian Zhang

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, the First Hospital, China Medical University, 155 Nanjing Bei St, Shenyang, China

    Xinyi Wu

Authors
  1. Mingyu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xinyi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Song Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xinyang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shijie Xin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jian Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 191 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, M., Wu, X., Wu, S. et al. Comparison of Chimney and Fenestrated Techniques for Supra-Aortic Branch Revascularization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 46, 1315–1328 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-023-03537-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-023-03537-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation