Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37684487›Full record

SynthesisCardiovascular and interventional radiology2023

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

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

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mingyu LiuDepartment of Vascular and Thyroid Surgery, The First Hospital, China Medical University, 155 Nanjing Bei St, Shenyang, China.
Xinyi WuDepartment of Anesthesiology, the First Hospital, China Medical University, 155 Nanjing Bei St, Shenyang, China.
Song WuDepartment of Vascular and Thyroid Surgery, The First Hospital, China Medical University, 155 Nanjing Bei St, Shenyang, China.
Xinyang LiDepartment of Vascular and Thyroid Surgery, The First Hospital, China Medical University, 155 Nanjing Bei St, Shenyang, China.
Shijie XinDepartment of Vascular and Thyroid Surgery, The First Hospital, China Medical University, 155 Nanjing Bei St, Shenyang, China.
Jian ZhangDepartment of Vascular and Thyroid Surgery, The First Hospital, China Medical University, 155 Nanjing Bei St, Shenyang, China. jianzhang@cmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4448-0774
First Hospital of China Medical University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81800407National Natural Science Foundation of China 81970402National Natural Science Foundation of China 82170507
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo 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.

methodsPubMed, 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.

results24 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).

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Aortic DiseasesBlood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationEndovascular ProceduresAorta, ThoracicBlood Vessel ProsthesisEndoleakEndovascular Aneurysm RepairHumansRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsStentsTreatment OutcomeChimney techniqueFenestrated techniqueTEVAR

Identifiers

PMID37684487
OpenAlexW4386533727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.