Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Identification of optimal device combinations for the chimney endovascular aneurysm repair technique within the PERICLES registry


Scali, Salvatore T; Beck, Adam W; Torsello, Giovanni; Lachat, Mario; Kubilis, Paul; Veith, Frank J; Lee, Jason T; Donas, Konstantinos P; PERICLES investigators (2018). Identification of optimal device combinations for the chimney endovascular aneurysm repair technique within the PERICLES registry. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 68(1):24-35.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The ideal stent combination for chimney endovascular aneurysm repair remains undetermined. Therefore, we sought to identify optimal aortic and chimney stent combinations that are associated with the best outcomes by analyzing the worldwide collected experience in the PERformance of chImney technique for the treatment of Complex aortic pathoLogiES (PERICLES) registry.
METHODS
The PERICLES registry was reviewed for patients with pararenal aortic disease electively treated from 2008 to 2014. Eleven different aortic devices were identified with three distinct subgroups: group A (n = 224), nitinol/polyester; group B (n = 105), stainless steel/polyester; and group C (n = 69), nitinol/expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. The various chimney stent subtypes included the balloon-expandable covered stent (BECS), self-expanding covered stent, and bare-metal stent. Deidentified aortic and chimney device combinations were compared for risk of chimney occlusion, type IA endoleak, and survival. Effects of high-volume centers (>100 cases), use of an internal lining chimney stent, number of chimney stents, and number of chimney stent subtypes deployed were also considered. We considered demographics, comorbidities, and aortic anatomic features as potential confounders in all models.
RESULTS
The 1- and 3-year freedom from BECS chimney occlusion was not different between groups (group A, 96% ± 2% and 87% ± 5%; groups B and C, 93% ± 3% and 76% ± 10%; Cox model, P = .33). Similarly, when non-BECS chimney stents were used, no difference in occlusion risk was noted for the three aortic device groupings; however, group C patients receiving BECS did have a trend toward higher occlusion risk relative to group C patients not receiving a BECS chimney stent (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-18.84; P = .08). Patients receiving multiple chimney stents, irrespective of stent subtype, had a 1.8-fold increased risk of occlusion for each additional stent (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.9; P = .01). Use of a bare-metal endolining stent doubled the occlusion hazard (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.0-4.5; P = .05). Risk of type IA endoleak (intraoperatively and postoperatively) did not significantly differ for the aortic devices with BECS use; however, group C patients had higher risk relative to groups A/B without BECS (C vs B: odds ratio [OR], 3.2 [95% CI, 1-11; P = .05]; C vs A/B: OR, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.9-6.4; P = .08]). Patients treated at high-volume centers had significantly lower odds for development of type IA endoleak (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; P = .01) irrespective of aortic or chimney device combination. Mortality risk was significantly higher in group C + BECS vs group A + BECS (HR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.6-17.5; P = .006). The 1- and 3-year survival for groups A, B, and C (+BECS) was as follows: group A, 97% ± 1% and 92% ± 3%; group B, 93% ± 3% and 83% ± 7%; and group C, 84% ± 7% and 63% ± 14%. Use of more than one chimney subtype was associated with increased mortality (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.4-7.5; P = .006).
CONCLUSIONS
Within the PERICLES registry, use of nitinol/polyester stent graft devices with BECS during chimney endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with improved survival compared with other aortic endografts. However, this advantage was not observed for non-BECS repairs. Repairs incorporating multiple chimney subtypes were also associated with increased mortality risk. Importantly, increasing chimney stent number and bare-metal endolining stents increase chimney occlusion risk, whereas patients treated at low-volume centers have higher risk of type IA endoleak.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The ideal stent combination for chimney endovascular aneurysm repair remains undetermined. Therefore, we sought to identify optimal aortic and chimney stent combinations that are associated with the best outcomes by analyzing the worldwide collected experience in the PERformance of chImney technique for the treatment of Complex aortic pathoLogiES (PERICLES) registry.
METHODS
The PERICLES registry was reviewed for patients with pararenal aortic disease electively treated from 2008 to 2014. Eleven different aortic devices were identified with three distinct subgroups: group A (n = 224), nitinol/polyester; group B (n = 105), stainless steel/polyester; and group C (n = 69), nitinol/expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. The various chimney stent subtypes included the balloon-expandable covered stent (BECS), self-expanding covered stent, and bare-metal stent. Deidentified aortic and chimney device combinations were compared for risk of chimney occlusion, type IA endoleak, and survival. Effects of high-volume centers (>100 cases), use of an internal lining chimney stent, number of chimney stents, and number of chimney stent subtypes deployed were also considered. We considered demographics, comorbidities, and aortic anatomic features as potential confounders in all models.
RESULTS
The 1- and 3-year freedom from BECS chimney occlusion was not different between groups (group A, 96% ± 2% and 87% ± 5%; groups B and C, 93% ± 3% and 76% ± 10%; Cox model, P = .33). Similarly, when non-BECS chimney stents were used, no difference in occlusion risk was noted for the three aortic device groupings; however, group C patients receiving BECS did have a trend toward higher occlusion risk relative to group C patients not receiving a BECS chimney stent (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-18.84; P = .08). Patients receiving multiple chimney stents, irrespective of stent subtype, had a 1.8-fold increased risk of occlusion for each additional stent (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.9; P = .01). Use of a bare-metal endolining stent doubled the occlusion hazard (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.0-4.5; P = .05). Risk of type IA endoleak (intraoperatively and postoperatively) did not significantly differ for the aortic devices with BECS use; however, group C patients had higher risk relative to groups A/B without BECS (C vs B: odds ratio [OR], 3.2 [95% CI, 1-11; P = .05]; C vs A/B: OR, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.9-6.4; P = .08]). Patients treated at high-volume centers had significantly lower odds for development of type IA endoleak (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; P = .01) irrespective of aortic or chimney device combination. Mortality risk was significantly higher in group C + BECS vs group A + BECS (HR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.6-17.5; P = .006). The 1- and 3-year survival for groups A, B, and C (+BECS) was as follows: group A, 97% ± 1% and 92% ± 3%; group B, 93% ± 3% and 83% ± 7%; and group C, 84% ± 7% and 63% ± 14%. Use of more than one chimney subtype was associated with increased mortality (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.4-7.5; P = .006).
CONCLUSIONS
Within the PERICLES registry, use of nitinol/polyester stent graft devices with BECS during chimney endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with improved survival compared with other aortic endografts. However, this advantage was not observed for non-BECS repairs. Repairs incorporating multiple chimney subtypes were also associated with increased mortality risk. Importantly, increasing chimney stent number and bare-metal endolining stents increase chimney occlusion risk, whereas patients treated at low-volume centers have higher risk of type IA endoleak.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
8 citations in Web of Science®
10 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Cardiovascular Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:July 2018
Deposited On:22 Feb 2019 09:56
Last Modified:22 Sep 2019 06:05
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0741-5214
OA Status:Closed
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2017.10.080
PubMed ID:29395423

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library