title: Early outcomes for fenestrated and chimney endografts in the treatment of pararenal aortic pathologies are not significantly different: a systematic review with pooled data analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare short-term outcomes between fenestrated and chimney endografts for pararenal aortic pathologies.
  
  
  METHODS
  An English-language literature search up to January 2012 found 129 articles evaluating the immediate outcomes of endovascular repair of degenerative juxta-/suprarenal aortic aneurysms, type I endoleaks, and para-anastomotic aneurysms using the chimney technique or fenestrated endografts. Data concerning thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, ruptured aneurysms, and reports with <5 cases were excluded (n=84). An additional 28 articles were excluded for insufficient data, leaving 17 articles for review: 5 dealing with chimney grafts in 123 patients with pararenal aortic pathologies and 12 presenting data on 660 [corrected] patients undergoing fenestrated stent-grafting. The composite endpoints were 30-day mortality, deterioration of renal function, new postoperative dialysis dependence, and endoleak rate.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Cumulative 30-day procedure-related mortality was 0.58% (95% CI 0.0% to 2.93%) for the chimney group (n=3) and 1.17% (95% CI 0.26% to 2.09%, p=0.645) for the f-EVAR group (n=9). In the f-EVAR group, 86 (9.67%; 95% CI 4.77% to 14.57%) patients suffered from postoperative renal impairment vs. 16 (12.43%) patients in the chimney group (95% CI 2.39% to 22.48%, p=0.628). In the chimney group, 4 (0.57%; 95% CI 0.0% to 2.94%) patients required persistent postoperative dialysis in contrast to the 1.33% (95% CI 0.29% to 2.37%, p=0.567) rate (n=9) in patients undergoing f-EVAR. There were also no significant differences recorded in the endoleak rate: 1.93% (95% CI 0.0% to 4.82%) of the chimney patients had a persistent type Ia endoleak vs. 2.06% (95% CI 0.69% to 3.43%) for the f-EVAR group (p=0.939). For type II endoleaks, the rates were 2.16% (95% CI 0.0% to 10.77%) for the chimney group vs. 6.88% (95% CI 1.92% to 11.83%) for the f-EVAR group (p=0.352). No patient in the chimney group had a type III endoleak, and the rate was low in the f-EVAR group (0.32%, 95% CI 0.0% to 0.91%, p=0.079).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  No statistically significant differences were found between the two endovascular approaches for pararenal aortic pathologies in terms of 30-day mortality, renal impairment, or endoleak. These findings support the assumption that chimney grafts may be a reliable alternative in the treatment of pararenal aortic pathologies.
authors.affiliation: Department of Vascular Surgery, St. Franziskus Hospital and Clinic for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany. k.donas@gmx.at
authors.forename: Konstantinos P
authors.initials: KP
authors.lastname: Donas
authors.forename: Giovanni
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Torsello
authors.forename: Theodosios
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Bisdas
authors.forename: Nani
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Osada
authors.forename: Eva
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Schönefeld
authors.forename: Georgios A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Pitoulias
mesh_terms: D017544:Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery*; D001807:Blood Vessel Prosthesis; D019917:Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000401:mortality; D057867:Endoleak / Q000209:etiology; D057510:Endovascular Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000401:mortality; D006801:Humans; D007668:Kidney / Q000503:physiopathology; D007674:Kidney Diseases / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D006435:Renal Dialysis; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D015607:Stents; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome