Department of Vascular Surgery, University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011 Jun;41(6):748-57. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.02.020. Epub 2011 Mar 16.
Evaluate the results of the two modalities used for the treatment of Secondary Aorto-Enteric Fistula (SAEF): In situ Reconstruction (ISR) and Extra-Anatomic Reconstruction (EAR). The primary endpoints of this study were early standard 30-day mortality and reinfection (RI). Secondary endpoints were perioperative morbidity, late mortality, primary graft patency, and major amputation rates.
MATERIAL & METHOD: Diagnosis of SAEF was based on clinical examination and the results of pre-operative duplex or CT scans. Surgical management was performed according to local protocols at the participating institutions: - Elective surgery: ISR or staged EAR. - Emergency surgery: aortic clamping followed by ISR or EAR. - Selected high-risk patients: endovascular repair. Statistical analyses were performed using the actuarial method. Univariate analysis was used for analysis of categorical variables, and multivariate analysis was performed with a Cox proportional hazard regression.
A total of 37 patients were included in this retrospective multicentre study. Mean follow-up was 41 months. The majority of the patients (20, 54%) presented acutely. EAR was performed in 9 patients (24%), ISR in 25 (68%), and 3 patients underwent endovascular repair. Bacteriological cultures were negative in 3 patients (9%). The most frequent organisms identified were Candida species and Escherichia coli. The 30-day mortality was 43% (16 patients). Patient age (>75 years) was the sole predictive factor associated with operative mortality (p = 0.02); pre-operative shock was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). There were 2 graft thromboses and 1 femoral amputation. Primary graft patency was respectively 89% at 1 year and 86% at 5 years; limb salvage rates were 100% at 1 and 5 years and 86% at 6 years, with no difference between ISR and EAR. RI occurred after 9.3 ± 13 months in 8 of 17 surviving patients and was fatal in all cases. For all surviving patients, the RI rate at 1 and 2 years was 24% and 41% respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of RI after ISR or EAR.
EAR does not appear to be superior to ISR. The risk of RI increased with the length of follow-up, irrespective of the treatment modality. Life-long surveillance is mandatory. Our results with endovascular sealing of SAEF should be considered a bridge to open repair.
评估两种治疗继发性主肠瘘(SAEF)的方法的结果:原位重建(ISR)和体外重建(EAR)。本研究的主要终点是早期标准 30 天死亡率和再感染(RI)。次要终点是围手术期发病率、晚期死亡率、原发移植物通畅率和主要截肢率。
SAEF 的诊断基于临床检查和术前双功超声或 CT 扫描的结果。手术治疗根据参与机构的当地方案进行:- 择期手术:ISR 或分期 EAR。- 急诊手术:主动脉夹闭后行 ISR 或 EAR。- 高危患者:血管内修复。统计分析采用累积法。单变量分析用于分析分类变量,多变量分析采用 Cox 比例风险回归。
本回顾性多中心研究共纳入 37 例患者。平均随访时间为 41 个月。大多数患者(20 例,54%)表现为急性。9 例(24%)行 EAR,25 例(68%)行 ISR,3 例行血管内修复。3 例(9%)细菌培养阴性。最常见的病原体为念珠菌属和大肠杆菌。30 天死亡率为 43%(16 例)。患者年龄(>75 岁)是唯一与手术死亡率相关的预测因素(p=0.02);术前休克无统计学意义(p=0.08)。有 2 例移植物血栓形成和 1 例股动脉截肢。1 年和 5 年时,原发移植物通畅率分别为 89%和 86%;1 年和 5 年时的肢体存活率均为 100%,6 年时为 86%,ISR 和 EAR 之间无差异。在 17 例存活患者中,8 例在 9.3±13 个月后发生 RI,均为致命性。所有存活患者 1 年和 2 年 RI 发生率分别为 24%和 41%。ISR 或 EAR 后 RI 发生率无显著差异。
EAR 似乎并不优于 ISR。无论治疗方式如何,RI 的风险都随着随访时间的延长而增加。必须进行终身监测。我们对 SAEF 血管内封堵的结果应视为开放修复的桥梁。