Coppi Gioacchino, Silingardi Roberto, Gennai Stefano, Saitta Giuseppe, Ciardullo Anna Vittoria
Department of Vascular Surgery, Policlinico Hospital of Modena and University of Studies of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
J Vasc Surg. 2006 Dec;44(6):1140-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2006.08.070.
To retrospectively compare a single center's immediate and mid-term outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm open and endovascular repair (EVAR) for two patient groups-hemodynamically stable and unstable patients-in the same time period.
Patients presenting at our center with confirmed rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm between December 1999 and April 2006 were considered according to an intention-to-treat model with EVAR. Patients with symptomatic or acute (but not ruptured) AAAs were not included in this study. Thirty-three patients underwent EVAR, and 91 underwent open repair. Seventy-two patients (EVAR, 45%; open, 63%) were classified as hemodynamically unstable at arrival, and 52 were classified as stable (EVAR, 55%; open, 37%). Ninety-seven percent of EVAR procedures commenced under local anesthesia, and 100% of open repairs occurred with general anesthesia. Overall successful graft deployment, 30-day mortality, overall reintervention rate, and complications were the study primary end points.
Overall successful graft deployment for EVAR was 91%; for open repair, it was 96%. Overall 30-day mortality for EVAR was 30% (unstable, 53%; stable, 11%), and the rate was 46% for open repair (unstable, 61%; stable, 21%). The EVAR postoperative reintervention rate (within 30 days) was 15% (unstable, 20%; stable, 11%), and for open repair it was 10% (unstable, 9%; stable, 15%). We recorded a 27% severe complication rate for EVAR patients (unstable, 40%; stable, 17%), and for patients treated with open repair, it was 33% (unstable, 35%; stable, 29%). Our overall EVAR eligibility rate was 52%, and our overall EVAR treatment rate was 27%.
Our study's overall results for EVAR remain encouraging when compared with those of conventional repair, but large randomized trials are required to confirm the efficacy of the procedure.
回顾性比较同一时期内,一家单中心针对血流动力学稳定和不稳定的两组患者,采用开放手术和血管腔内修复术(EVAR)治疗破裂腹主动脉瘤的近期和中期疗效。
依据意向性治疗模型,纳入1999年12月至2006年4月间在本中心确诊为腹主动脉瘤破裂的患者。有症状或急性(但未破裂)腹主动脉瘤患者不纳入本研究。33例患者接受了EVAR治疗,91例接受了开放手术修复。72例患者(EVAR组占45%;开放手术组占63%)入院时被分类为血流动力学不稳定,52例被分类为稳定(EVAR组占55%;开放手术组占37%)。97%的EVAR手术在局部麻醉下开始,100%的开放手术在全身麻醉下进行。总体移植物成功植入率、30天死亡率、总体再次干预率和并发症是本研究的主要终点。
EVAR总体移植物成功植入率为91%;开放手术修复为96%。EVAR总体30天死亡率为30%(不稳定患者为53%;稳定患者为11%),开放手术修复的死亡率为46%(不稳定患者为61%;稳定患者为21%)。EVAR术后(30天内)再次干预率为15%(不稳定患者为20%;稳定患者为11%),开放手术修复为10%(不稳定患者为9%;稳定患者为15%)。我们记录到EVAR患者严重并发症发生率为27%(不稳定患者为40%;稳定患者为17%),接受开放手术修复的患者为33%(不稳定患者为35%;稳定患者为29%)。我们的总体EVAR适用率为52%,总体EVAR治疗率为27%。
与传统修复方法相比,我们研究中EVAR的总体结果仍然令人鼓舞,但需要大型随机试验来证实该手术的疗效。