These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A current systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of chimney graft technology in aortic arch diseases.
    Author: Ahmad W, Mylonas S, Majd P, Brunkwall JS.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2017 Nov; 66(5):1602-1610.e2. PubMed ID: 28847663.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide a review of the literature on the use of chimney graft (CG) technique in treating arterial diseases of the aortic arch and to extrapolate conclusions by summarizing the reported outcomes in a meta-analysis. METHODS: An extensive electronic search was made using PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct Databases, and the Cochrane Library. Included in this meta-analysis were all papers published up to February 2016 on endovascular chimney technique in the arch vessels with or without adjunct extra-anatomic debranching, in any language, providing data about at least one of the essential outcomes: early and late type I endoleak, 30-day mortality rate, development of perioperative stroke, patency, and retrograde aortic dissection. RESULTS: Of the 478 reports yielded by the electronic search, a total of 11 publications (on 373 patients and 387 CGs) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. The overall estimated proportion of technical success was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.4%-94.0%). Of the 373 patients, 26 (7%) experienced a type Ia endoleak in the perioperative period. The overall estimated proportion of early type Ia endoleak was 9.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-13.4%). Among the 10 studies that provided data, a retrograde type A dissection was observed in 2 of 351 patients, resulting in an overall estimated proportion of 1.8% (95% CI, 0.8%-4.0%). The pooled 30-day mortality rate was 7.9% (95% CI, 4.6%-13.2%). The pooled estimation for reintervention was 10.6% (95% CI, 5%-21%); for major stroke, 2.6% (95% CI, 1.3%-5.0%); for early patency, 97.9% (95% CI, 95.8%-99%); and for late patency, 92.9% (95% CI, 87.3%-96%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of aortic diseases involving the aortic arch poses a great challenge. The CG technique has been applied as an alternative treatment option. This meta-analysis shows that endovascular repair of aortic arch disease using a CG technique in the aortic arch vessels is technically feasible and effective but not without major risk of complications.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]