Carpenter Jeffrey P, Baum Richard A, Barker Clyde F, Golden Michael A, Velazquez Omaida C, Mitchell Mark E, Fairman Ronald M
Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, PA, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2002 Feb;35(2):222-8. doi: 10.1067/mva.2002.120034.
Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is reported to result in less initial patient morbidity and a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) when compared with conventional AAA repair. We sought to examine the durability of this result during the intermediate follow-up interval.
The records of all admissions for all patients who underwent AAA repair during a 26-month interval were reviewed.
Three hundred thirty-seven (337) patients underwent procedures to repair AAAs (163 open and 174 endovascular). Endovascular procedures were performed with a variety of devices (Talent, 108; Ancure, 36; AneuRx, 26; Zenith, 2; and Cordis, 2) and configurations (141 bifurcated and 33 aortomonoiliac). The mean follow-up period was 10.6 months (endovascular repair) and 12.3 months (open repair). LOS did not significantly vary by device (P =.24 to P =.92) or configuration (P =.24). The initial median LOS for procedures was significantly shorter (P =.009) for endovascular repairs (5 days) than for open procedures (8 days). However, the patients who underwent endovascular repair were more likely to be readmitted during the follow-up interval when compared with patients who underwent open procedure. The readmission-free survival rate after AAA repair at 12 months was 95% for patients for open AAA repair versus 71% for patients for endovascular repair (P <.001). If the total hospital days were compared, including the initial and all subsequent AAA-related admissions, there was no significant difference for mean LOS for patients who underwent endovascular versus open AAA procedures (11 days versus 13.6 days; P =.21). The patients for endovascular AAA repair most commonly needed readmission for treatment of endoleak (n = 31), wound infection (n = 12), and graft limb thrombosis (n = 9). Although women had similar LOS to men for endovascular repair (P =.44), they had longer initial LOS for open AAA repair (15 versus 10 days; P =.03). After endovascular repair, women were more likely than men to be readmitted by 12 months (51% versus 71% readmission-free survival rate; P =.03) and they had longer LOS on readmission (13.2 versus 5.2 days; P =.006). No gender differences were identified for patients after open AAA repair regarding readmission-free survival rate (P =.09) or LOS on readmission (P =.98).
Although initial LOS was shorter for the patients who underwent endovascular as compared with conventional AAA repair, this advantage was lost during the follow-up interval because of frequent readmission for the treatment of procedure-related complications, chiefly endoleak. These readmissions frequently involved the performance of additional invasive procedures. Gender differences existed regarding LOS and the likelihood of complications after open and endovascular AAA repair.
据报道,与传统的腹主动脉瘤(AAA)修复术相比,血管腔内腹主动脉瘤修复术可降低患者的初始发病率,并缩短住院时间(LOS)。我们试图研究这一结果在中期随访期间的持久性。
回顾了在26个月期间接受AAA修复术的所有患者的所有入院记录。
337例患者接受了AAA修复手术(163例开放手术和174例血管腔内手术)。血管腔内手术使用了多种器械(泰科医疗器械公司的Talent,108例;美敦力公司的Ancure,36例;美敦力公司的AneuRx,26例;库克公司的Zenith,2例;科迪斯公司的Cordis,2例)和不同的构型(141例分叉型和33例主动脉单髂型)。平均随访期为血管腔内修复术10.6个月,开放修复术12.3个月。住院时间在不同器械(P = 0.24至P = 0.92)或构型(P = 0.24)之间无显著差异。血管腔内修复术的初始中位住院时间(5天)显著短于开放手术(8天)(P = 0.009)。然而,与接受开放手术的患者相比,接受血管腔内修复术的患者在随访期间更有可能再次入院。开放AAA修复术患者术后12个月的无再入院生存率为95%,而血管腔内修复术患者为71%(P < 0.001)。如果比较包括初次及所有后续与AAA相关入院的总住院天数,接受血管腔内与开放AAA手术的患者平均住院时间无显著差异(11天对13.6天;P = 0.21)。血管腔内AAA修复术患者最常见的再次入院原因是内漏治疗(n = 31)、伤口感染(n = 12)和移植物肢体血栓形成(n = 9)。虽然女性血管腔内修复术的住院时间与男性相似(P = 0.44),但她们开放AAA修复术的初始住院时间更长(15天对10天;P = 0.03)。血管腔内修复术后,女性在12个月时比男性更有可能再次入院(无再入院生存率51%对71%;P = 0.03),且再次入院时住院时间更长(13.2天对5.2天;P = 0.006)。开放AAA修复术后患者在无再入院生存率(P = 0.09)或再次入院时的住院时间(P = 0.98)方面未发现性别差异。
虽然与传统AAA修复术相比,接受血管腔内修复术的患者初始住院时间较短,但由于与手术相关并发症(主要是内漏)的频繁再次入院,这一优势在随访期间丧失。这些再次入院经常需要进行额外的侵入性手术。开放和血管腔内AAA修复术后,在住院时间和并发症发生可能性方面存在性别差异。