The concept of the chimney graft (CG) was first introduced by Greenberg et al
1
with the use of renal stents to depress the proximal edge of stent graft fabric that protruded a few millimetres above the renal artery ostium.The CG involves concurrent deployment of a standard aortic endograft and covered stents into the visceral arteries such that the proximal portion of the visceral stent lies parallel to the aortic stent with the distal portion preserving flow to the overstented visceral vessel.
Indications for this technique include restoration of flow in aortic branches accidentally or intentionally covered during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) when the aneurysm neck is too short to provide adequate seal, and the SG needs to be placed across the aortic branches. This is particularly true in urgent cases when it is not possible to delay for the manufacture of a branched/fenestrated graft, which otherwise would be indicated, such as symptomatic or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. It is also significantly cheaper than branched/fenestrated endografts.
Evidence surrounding the use of CG consists of case reports and small case series only and the long-term durability of the CG remains unclear. Intuitively they have design flaws compared to branched/fenestrated grafts. The contact of the endograft to the vessel wall may be decreased by the visceral grafts; subsequently there is a poorer graft/wall interface and therefore a reduction in the radial sealing force.
“Gutters” between the vessel wall, the stents, and the endografts may be difficult to seal and lead to subsequent endoleaks. The mechanism of seal around the CG stents and gutters is likely to be multifactorial.
A recent systematic review analysed 75 patients who underwent a chimney procedure for the preservation of 96 branches. Three perioperative deaths were recorded and 3 chimney grafts occluded during follow up. The authors were able to justify the use of chimney grafts in the emergency setting only, as the data for long term follow up was lacking.
2
Lee et al recently published their series of 28 patients who underwent planned chimney/snorkel graft repair.3
Fifty-six snorkel grafts were placed with technical success in 98.2%. One renal snorkel graft occluded at 3 months (98.2% overall primary patency), two type 1a endoleaks were noted which resolved at the 6-month scan. Resch et al have analysed their 25 patient series of planned chimney repair within the visceral segment.4
During a mean follow up of 10 months, only 1 chimney graft occluded and 3 patients had a type 1 endoleak, 2 of which did not require intervention.Endovascular repair in the setting of adverse anatomy has been the focus of much research over the past decade and is an evolving field. Mestres and coauthors have nicely described an in-vitro study using silicon aneurysmal neck models to determine the best conditions for parallel stenting during EVAR. This is the first time an attempt has been made to objectively demonstrate the features that are critical in the use of chimney grafts, by mimicking the morphological conditions encountered. This data shows the need for continued evaluation and the need for more robust evidence in the use of chimney grafts.
References
- Should patients with challenging anatomy be offered endovascular aneurysm repair?.J Vasc Surg. 2003; 38: 990-996
Tolenaar JL, van Keulen JW, Trimarchi S, Muhs BE, Moll FL, van Herwaarden JA. The chimneygraft, a systematic review. Ann Vasc Surg. [Epub ahead of print].
- Early experience with the snorkel technique for juxtarenal aneurysms.J Vasc Surg. 2012; 55: 935-946
- Chimney grafts: is there a need and will they work?.Perspect Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther. 2011; 23: 149-153
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 17, 2012
Received:
August 15,
2012
Identification
Copyright
© 2012 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc.
User license
Elsevier user license | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Elsevier user license
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
Not Permitted
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- The Best Conditions for Parallel Stenting During EVAR: An In Vitro StudyEuropean Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryVol. 44Issue 5Open Archive
Related Articles
Comments
Commenting Guidelines
To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:
- We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
- This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
- We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
- Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
- Comments are not peer-reviewed.
