RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Gender-related differences in outcomes in complex endovascular aortic repair have not been profoundly investigated. Use of low profile abdominal devices as in chimney endovascular repair may be beneficial for female patients with pararenal pathologies. With the chimney technique, there is no need for large introduction sheaths. This could be an advantage in case of smaller in diameter iliac access especially in combination with stenosis or elongation. Aim of the present study was to compare the perioperative and mid-term outcomes between males and females patients treated with the chimney/snorkel technique for pararenal aortic pathologies. METHODS: The PERICLES registry collected the world wide experience with the chimney technique. According to the gender, patients were classified in two cohorts. Primary endpoints were freedom from occlusion of the chimney grafts and reintervention. Secondary endpoints included access site complications and need for surgical or interventional revision, Endoleak Type I rate, 30-day overall complications and mortality. Univariate comparison P-values were generated using either the likelihood ratio χ2 test, the Fisher exact test, the Wilcoxon rank sum test, or the log rank test. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated the outcomes in the long run. RESULTS: A total of 412 patients underwent Ch-EVAR, 71 (17%) females and 341 (83%) males with a mean age for both groups being 74 years were included in the present study. After 36 months of mean follow-up, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two cohorts regarding re-interventions ( P= .44). Freedom from occlusion rates at 36 months did not differed between the two groups (females 84% vs. 80% for males ( P= .033). For patients receiving more than one chimney stent, the odds of having a complication did not differ between males and females (M:F OR = 2.0, 95% CI: 0.6-6.4, P = 0.228); 30-day mortality was 0% in the female group, instead five male patients died within one month. ( P = 0.59). The incidence of acute renal failure was low in both groups without statistical difference: 2 (3.1%) vs. 13 (4.6%) 58 ( P = 1.00). Neither patient received an endoconduit to insert the abdominal device. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference regarding the freedom from reintervention and chimney graft patency was observed between the two genders. The results highlight the beneficial use of the chimney technique in female patients who can have potentially higher risk of access complications.