Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 Nov;140(5):1001-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.08.007.
Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) was introduced in 2005 to treat descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. Little is known about TEVAR's nationwide effect on patient outcomes. We evaluated nationwide data regarding the short-term outcomes of TEVAR and open aortic repair (OAR) procedures performed in the United States during a 2-year period.
From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, we identified patients who had undergone surgery for an isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysm from 2006 to 2007. Patients with aneurysm rupture, aortic dissection, vasculitis, connective tissue disorders, or concomitant aneurysms in other aortic segments were excluded. Of the remaining 11,669 patients, 9106 had undergone conventional OAR and 2563 had undergone TEVAR. Hierarchic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of TEVAR versus OAR after adjusting for confounding factors. The primary outcomes were mortality and the hospital length of stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes were the discharge status, morbidity, and hospital charges.
The patients who had undergone TEVAR were older (69.5 ± 12.7 vs 60.2 ± 14.2 years; P < .001) and had higher Deyo comorbidity scores (4.6 ± 1.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.8; P < .001). The unadjusted LOS was shorter for the TEVAR patients (7.7 ± 11 vs 8.8 ± 7.9 days), but the unadjusted mortality was similar (TEVAR 2.3% vs OAR 2.3%; P = 1.0). The proportion of nonelective interventions was similar between the 2 groups (TEVAR 15.9% vs OAR 15.8%; P = .9). The TEVAR and OAR techniques produced similar risk-adjusted mortality rates; however, the TEVAR patients had 60% fewer complications overall (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .001) and a shorter LOS (by 1.3 days). The TEVAR patients' hospital charges were greater by $6713 (95% confidence interval $1869 to $11,556; P < .001). However, the TEVAR patients were 4 times more likely to have a routine discharge to home.
The nationwide data on TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms have associated this procedure with better in-hospital outcomes than OAR, even though TEVAR was selectively performed in patients who were almost 1 decade older than the OAR patients. Compared with OAR, TEVAR was associated with a shorter hospital LOS and fewer complications but significantly greater hospital charges.
胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)于 2005 年引入,用于治疗降主动脉夹层动脉瘤。对于 TEVAR 对患者预后的全国性影响知之甚少。我们评估了美国在两年期间接受 TEVAR 和开放式主动脉修复(OAR)手术的患者的短期结果的全国性数据。
从全国住院患者样本数据中,我们确定了 2006 年至 2007 年间因孤立性降主动脉夹层动脉瘤接受手术的患者。排除动脉瘤破裂、主动脉夹层、血管炎、结缔组织疾病或其他主动脉节段并存动脉瘤的患者。在剩余的 11669 名患者中,9106 名患者接受了常规 OAR,2563 名患者接受了 TEVAR。采用层次回归分析,在调整混杂因素后评估 TEVAR 与 OAR 的影响。主要结果是死亡率和住院时间(LOS)。次要结果是出院状态、发病率和住院费用。
接受 TEVAR 的患者年龄较大(69.5 ± 12.7 岁 vs 60.2 ± 14.2 岁;P <.001),合并症评分较高(4.6 ± 1.8 分 vs 3.3 ± 1.8 分;P <.001)。TEVAR 患者的未经调整 LOS 较短(7.7 ± 11 天 vs 8.8 ± 7.9 天),但未经调整死亡率相似(TEVAR 2.3% vs OAR 2.3%;P = 1.0)。两组非选择性干预的比例相似(TEVAR 15.9% vs OAR 15.8%;P =.9)。TEVAR 和 OAR 技术产生的风险调整死亡率相似;然而,TEVAR 患者的总体并发症减少了 60%(优势比,0.39;P <.001),LOS 缩短了 1.3 天。TEVAR 患者的住院费用增加了 6713 美元(95%置信区间 1869 美元至 11556 美元;P <.001)。然而,TEVAR 患者更有可能常规出院回家。
降主动脉夹层动脉瘤的全国性 TEVAR 数据表明,与 OAR 相比,该手术具有更好的住院结果,尽管 TEVAR 是选择性地在比 OAR 患者大近 10 岁的患者中进行的。与 OAR 相比,TEVAR 与较短的住院时间和较少的并发症相关,但显著增加了住院费用。