Rizvi Adnan Z, Kalra Manju, Bjarnason Haraldur, Bower Thomas C, Schleck Cathy, Gloviczki Peter
Division of Vascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Feb;47(2):372-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.09.071.
Endovascular repair (EVR) is emerging as first-line treatment for patients with superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome of benign etiology, but data on its durability remain scarce. The aims of this study were to assess the efficacy and durability of EVR and compare results of EVR with open surgical reconstruction (OSR).
Data from 70 consecutive patients undergoing treatment for benign SVC syndrome between November 1983 and November 2006 were retrospectively reviewed.
There were 30 males and 40 females (mean age, 41 years; range, 5-75 years). Etiology included indwelling catheters or pacemaker wires in 35 patients, mediastinal fibrosis in 31, idiopathic thrombosis in 2, hypercoagulable disorder in 1, and postsurgical thrombosis in 1. In 42 patients, OSR was done through a median sternotomy: repair was with spiral saphenous vein in 22, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) in 13, femoral vein grafts in 6, and human allograft in 1. Fifteen OSRs followed failed EVR interventions. EVR was attempted in 32 patients and was successful in 28 (88%): 19 had stenting, 14 had percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty (PTA), 2 had thrombolytic therapy with PTA, and 3 had stenting. All four technical failures subsequently underwent OSR. There were no early deaths in either group. Periprocedural morbidity was 19% after OSR and 4% in the EVR group. Six early surgical graft failures were successfully treated with surgical revision; one restenosis after EVR was restented. During a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (range, 0.1-17.5 years) after OSR, 11 patients underwent 18 secondary interventions. Mean follow-up after EVR was 2.2 years (range, 0.2-6.4 years), and nine patients underwent 21 secondary EVR interventions. Primary, assisted primary, and secondary patency rates of surgical bypass grafts were, respectively, 45%, 68%, and 75% at 3 and 5 years. Primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates after EVR were 44%, 96%, and 96% at 3 years. Assisted primary patency was significantly higher in vein grafts than in ePTFE grafts (P = .05). Assisted primary and secondary patency was significantly higher in patients undergoing stenting compared with PTA (P = .02). At last follow-up, 93% of patients in both OSR and EVR groups had significant relief from symptoms.
OSR of benign SVC syndrome is effective, with durable long-term relief from symptoms. EVR is less invasive but equally effective in the mid-term, albeit at the cost of multiple secondary interventions, and is an appropriate primary treatment for benign SVC syndrome. OSR remains an excellent choice for patients who are not suitable for EVR or in whom the EVR fails.
血管腔内修复术(EVR)正逐渐成为良性病因导致的上腔静脉(SVC)综合征患者的一线治疗方法,但关于其持久性的数据仍然匮乏。本研究的目的是评估EVR的疗效和持久性,并将EVR的结果与开放手术重建(OSR)进行比较。
回顾性分析了1983年11月至2006年11月期间连续接受良性SVC综合征治疗的70例患者的数据。
男性30例,女性40例(平均年龄41岁;范围5 - 75岁)。病因包括35例留置导管或起搏器导线、31例纵隔纤维化、2例特发性血栓形成、1例高凝状态和1例术后血栓形成。42例患者通过正中胸骨切开术进行OSR:22例采用螺旋大隐静脉修复,13例采用膨体聚四氟乙烯(ePTFE),6例采用股静脉移植,1例采用人同种异体移植。15例OSR是在EVR干预失败后进行的。32例患者尝试进行EVR,28例成功(88%):19例进行了支架置入,14例进行了经皮腔内球囊血管成形术(PTA),2例进行了PTA溶栓治疗,3例进行了支架置入。所有4例技术失败患者随后均接受了OSR。两组均无早期死亡病例。OSR术后围手术期发病率为19%,EVR组为4%。6例早期手术移植失败通过手术翻修成功治疗;1例EVR术后再狭窄患者再次进行了支架置入。OSR术后平均随访4.1年(范围0.1 - 17.5年),11例患者接受了18次二次干预。EVR术后平均随访2.2年(范围0.2 - 6.4年),9例患者接受了21次EVR二次干预。手术旁路移植的一期、辅助一期和二期通畅率在3年和5年时分别为45%、68%和75%。EVR术后3年的一期、辅助一期和二期通畅率分别为44%、96%和96%。静脉移植的辅助一期通畅率显著高于ePTFE移植(P = 0.05)。与PTA相比,接受支架置入的患者辅助一期和二期通畅率显著更高(P = 0.02)。在最后一次随访时,OSR组和EVR组93%的患者症状得到明显缓解。
良性SVC综合征的OSR有效,可长期持久缓解症状。EVR侵入性较小,中期效果相同,尽管需要多次二次干预,是良性SVC综合征的合适初始治疗方法。对于不适合EVR或EVR失败的患者,OSR仍然是一个很好的选择。