Dillavou Ellen D, Muluk Satish C, Rhee Robert Y, Tzeng Edith, Woody Jonathan D, Gupta Navyash, Makaroun Michel S
Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2003 Oct;38(4):657-63. doi: 10.1016/s0741-5214(03)00738-9.
Poor outcomes have been reported with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with hostile neck anatomy. Unsupported endografts with active fixation may offer certain advantages in this situation. We compared EVAR results using the Ancure (Guidant) endograft in patients with and without hostile neck anatomy.
Records of EVAR patients from October 1999 to July 2002 at a tertiary care hospital were retrospectively reviewed from a division database. Patients with elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair during the same period were reviewed to determine those unsuitable for EVAR. Hostile neck anatomy, assessed by computer tomography (CT) scans and angiograms, was defined as one or more of the following: (1) neck length </=10 mm, (2) focal bulge in the neck >3 mm, (3) >2-mm reverse taper within 1 cm below the renal arteries, (4) neck thrombus > or =50% of circumference, and (5) angulation > or =60 degrees within 3 cm below renals.
Three hundred and twenty-two patients underwent EVAR with an average follow-up of 18 months. Patients in Phase II trials (n = 41), repaired with other graft types (n = 48), or without complete anatomic records (n = 27) were excluded. Demographics and co-morbidities were similar in the 115 good-neck (GN) and 91 bad-neck (BN) patients except for age (mean, 72.9 years GN vs 75.7 BN; P = 0.13), gender (11% female GN vs 22% BN; P =.04); neck length (mean, 21.8 mm GN vs 14.4 mm BN: P <.001), and angulation (mean, 22 degrees GN vs 40 degrees BN; (P <.001). Perioperative mortality (0 GN vs 1.1% BN), late mortality (5.2% GN vs 4.4% BN), all endoleaks (19.1% GN vs 17.6% BN), proximal endoleaks (0.8% GN vs 2.1% BN), and graft migration (0 for both groups) did not reach statistical significance. Neck anatomy precluded EVAR in 106 of 165 (64%) patients with open AAA.
Unsupported endografts with active fixation can yield excellent results in treating many medically compromised patients with hostile neck anatomy. Nonetheless, an unsuitable neck remains the most frequent cause for open abdominal AAA.
有报道称,对于颈部解剖结构复杂的患者,血管内动脉瘤修复术(EVAR)的预后较差。具有主动固定功能的无支撑型内支架移植物在此种情况下可能具有一定优势。我们比较了使用Ancure(Guidant)内支架移植物对颈部解剖结构复杂和不复杂的患者进行EVAR的结果。
回顾性分析了一家三级护理医院1999年10月至2002年7月期间EVAR患者的病历,数据来自科室数据库。同时回顾了同期接受择期开放性腹主动脉瘤(AAA)修复的患者,以确定那些不适合进行EVAR的患者。通过计算机断层扫描(CT)和血管造影评估的颈部解剖结构复杂定义为以下一项或多项:(1)颈部长度≤10mm,(2)颈部局灶性膨出>3mm,(3)肾动脉下方1cm内逆向锥度>2mm,(4)颈部血栓>或=圆周的50%,以及(5)肾动脉下方3cm内成角>或=60度。
322例患者接受了EVAR,平均随访18个月。排除II期试验患者(n = 41)、使用其他移植物类型修复的患者(n = 48)或没有完整解剖记录的患者(n = 27)。115例颈部解剖结构良好(GN)和91例颈部解剖结构复杂(BN)的患者在人口统计学和合并症方面相似,但年龄(平均,GN组72.9岁 vs BN组75.7岁;P = 0.13)、性别(女性,GN组11% vs BN组22%;P =.04)、颈部长度(平均,GN组21.8mm vs BN组14.4mm:P <.001)和成角(平均,GN组22度 vs BN组40度;(P <.001)除外。围手术期死亡率(GN组0 vs BN组1.1%)、晚期死亡率(GN组5.2% vs BN组4.4%)、所有内漏(GN组19.1% vs BN组17.6%)、近端内漏(GN组0.8% vs BN组2.1%)和移植物移位(两组均为0)均未达到统计学显著性。在165例开放性AAA患者中,有106例(64%)因颈部解剖结构不适合而无法进行EVAR。
具有主动固定功能的无支撑型内支架移植物在治疗许多颈部解剖结构复杂的内科合并症患者时可产生优异的效果。尽管如此,不合适的颈部仍然是开放性腹主动脉瘤最常见的原因。