Suppr超能文献

腹主动脉瘤血管内修复与开放修复后的结局:一项随机试验。

Outcomes following endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial.

作者信息

Lederle Frank A, Freischlag Julie A, Kyriakides Tassos C, Padberg Frank T, Matsumura Jon S, Kohler Ted R, Lin Peter H, Jean-Claude Jessie M, Cikrit Dolores F, Swanson Kathleen M, Peduzzi Peter N

机构信息

Medicine Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417, USA.

出版信息

JAMA. 2009 Oct 14;302(14):1535-42. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1426.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Limited data are available to assess whether endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) improves short-term outcomes compared with traditional open repair.

OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative outcomes up to 2 years after endovascular or open repair of AAA in a planned interim report of a 9-year trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized, multicenter clinical trial of 881 veterans (aged > or = 49 years) from 42 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers with eligible AAA who were candidates for both elective endovascular repair and open repair of AAA. The trial is ongoing and this report describes the period between October 15, 2002, and October 15, 2008.

INTERVENTION

Elective endovascular (n = 444) or open (n = 437) repair of AAA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Procedure failure, secondary therapeutic procedures, length of stay, quality of life, erectile dysfunction, major morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 1.8 years. Perioperative mortality (30 days or inpatient) was lower for endovascular repair (0.5% vs 3.0%; P = .004), but there was no significant difference in mortality at 2 years (7.0% vs 9.8%, P = .13). Patients in the endovascular repair group had reduced median procedure time (2.9 vs 3.7 hours), blood loss (200 vs 1000 mL), transfusion requirement (0 vs 1.0 units), duration of mechanical ventilation (3.6 vs 5.0 hours), hospital stay (3 vs 7 days), and intensive care unit stay (1 vs 4 days), but required substantial exposure to fluoroscopy and contrast. There were no differences between the 2 groups in major morbidity, procedure failure, secondary therapeutic procedures, aneurysm-related hospitalizations, health-related quality of life, or erectile function.

CONCLUSIONS

In this report of short-term outcomes after elective AAA repair, perioperative mortality was low for both procedures and lower for endovascular than open repair. The early advantage of endovascular repair was not offset by increased morbidity or mortality in the first 2 years after repair. Longer-term outcome data are needed to fully assess the relative merits of the 2 procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00094575.

摘要

背景

关于腹主动脉瘤(AAA)血管内修复术与传统开放修复术相比是否能改善短期预后的数据有限。

目的

在一项为期9年试验的计划中期报告中,比较AAA血管内修复术或开放修复术后2年内的术后预后。

设计、地点和患者:一项随机、多中心临床试验,纳入了来自42家退伍军人事务医疗中心的881名退伍军人(年龄≥49岁),他们患有符合条件的AAA,且均为AAA择期血管内修复术和开放修复术的候选者。该试验正在进行中,本报告描述了2002年10月15日至2008年10月15日期间的情况。

干预措施

AAA的择期血管内修复术(n = 444)或开放修复术(n = 437)。

主要结局指标

手术失败、二次治疗手术、住院时间、生活质量、勃起功能障碍、严重并发症和死亡率。

结果

平均随访时间为1.8年。血管内修复术的围手术期死亡率(30天或住院期间)较低(0.5%对3.0%;P = 0.004),但2年时的死亡率无显著差异(7.0%对9.8%,P = 0.13)。血管内修复组患者的中位手术时间缩短(2.9对3.7小时)、失血量减少(200对1000毫升)、输血需求降低(0对1.0单位)、机械通气时间缩短(3.6对5.0小时)、住院时间缩短(3对7天)以及重症监护病房住院时间缩短(1对4天),但需要大量使用荧光透视和造影剂。两组在严重并发症、手术失败、二次治疗手术、动脉瘤相关住院、健康相关生活质量或勃起功能方面无差异。

结论

在本项关于AAA择期修复术后短期预后的报告中,两种手术的围手术期死亡率均较低,且血管内修复术低于开放修复术。血管内修复术的早期优势并未被修复后前2年增加的并发症或死亡率所抵消。需要长期结局数据来全面评估这两种手术的相对优缺点。

试验注册

clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00094575。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验