Burke Christopher R, Henke Peter K, Hernandez Roland, Rectenwald John E, Krishnamurthy Venkat, Englesbe Michael J, Kubus James J, Escobar Guillermo A, Upchurch Gilbert R, Eliason Jonathan L
Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2010 Jan;24(1):4-13. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2009.09.005.
Although aortofemoral bypass (AFB) has historically been the treatment of choice for aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD), rates of AFB have declined, while utilization of aortoiliac angioplasty and stenting (AS) has increased dramatically. The objective of the current study was to determine the effect of these trends on treatment outcomes in a contemporary single-institution experience with AIOD.
Between 1997 and 2007, 118 AFB and 174 AS procedures were performed in 161 men (55.1%) and 131 women at a single university teaching hospital. Patient outcomes were retrospectively reviewed and analyses were performed using chi-squared/Fisher's exact test and ANOVA. Ankle-brachial index (ABI) interactions between procedure type and Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) category were calculated using a General Linear Model. A reduced Cox model was used to determine the impact of patency, presenting symptoms, duplex surveillance, and procedure type on amputations and revisions. Kaplan-Meier estimates for survival, freedom from amputation, and freedom from revision were used to evaluate long-term outcomes.
There was no difference between AFB and AS groups with respect to 30-day mortality (0.8% and 1.1%, p=0.64), myocardial infarction (1.7% and 1.1%, p=0.53), cerebrovascular accident (0.0% and 1.1%, p=0.35), or renal failure requiring hemodialysis (3.4% and 1.2%, p=0.19). AFB was associated with increased surgical complication rates including the need for emergency surgery (6.8% and 1.7%, p=0.029), infection/sepsis (16.1% and 2.3%, p<0.001), transfusion (16.1% and 5.7%, p=0.004), and lymph leak (8.5% and 0.6%, p=0.001). The difference between preprocedural and postprocedural ABI was greater for AFB than AS (R, 0.39 and 0.18, p<0.001; L, 0.41 and 0.15, p<0.001). This difference was maintained when patients were stratified by TASC category.
There were no differences between the AFB and AS groups with respect to long-term rates of mortality, amputation, or revision procedures. AFB continues to be performed safely, despite the case numbers in this series correlating with a lower-volume hospital. Morbidities associated with major open surgery in this series were counterbalanced by greater improvements in ABI. Patients and practitioners should continue to entertain both procedure types as viable alternatives for the treatment of AIOD.
尽管从历史上看,主-股动脉旁路移植术(AFB)一直是主-髂动脉闭塞性疾病(AIOD)的首选治疗方法,但AFB的应用率有所下降,而主-髂动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(AS)的应用率则大幅上升。本研究的目的是在当代单机构AIOD治疗经验中确定这些趋势对治疗结果的影响。
1997年至2007年期间,在一家大学教学医院对161名男性(55.1%)和131名女性进行了118例AFB和174例AS手术。对患者的治疗结果进行回顾性分析,并采用卡方检验/费舍尔精确检验和方差分析。使用一般线性模型计算手术类型与跨大西洋跨学会共识(TASC)分类之间的踝臂指数(ABI)相互作用。采用简化的Cox模型确定通畅率、出现的症状、双功超声监测和手术类型对截肢和翻修的影响。采用Kaplan-Meier法估计生存率、无截肢生存率和无翻修生存率,以评估长期疗效。
AFB组和AS组在30天死亡率(0.8%和1.1%,p=0.64)、心肌梗死(1.7%和1.1%,p=0.53)、脑血管意外(0.0%和1.1%,p=0.35)或需要血液透析的肾衰竭(3.4%和1.2%,p=0.19)方面无差异。AFB与手术并发症发生率增加相关,包括急诊手术需求(6.8%和1.7%,p=0.029)、感染/脓毒症(16.1%和2.3%,p<0.001)、输血(16.1%和5.7%,p=0.004)和淋巴漏(8.5%和0.6%,p=0.001)。AFB术前和术后ABI的差异大于AS(右侧,0.39和0.18,p<0.001;左侧,0.41和0.15,p<0.001)。按TASC分类对患者进行分层时,这种差异仍然存在。
AFB组和AS组在长期死亡率、截肢率或翻修手术率方面无差异。尽管本系列病例数与一家手术量较低的医院相关,但AFB仍可安全进行。本系列中与大型开放手术相关的发病率被ABI的更大改善所抵消。患者和从业者应继续将这两种手术类型视为治疗AIOD的可行替代方案。