Suppr超能文献

长期单中心的血管内动脉瘤修复术与开放主动脉瘤修复术的比较。

Long-term single institution comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair and open aortic aneurysm repair.

机构信息

University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Surgery, Section of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Birmingham, AL 35294-0012, USA.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2011 Dec;54(6):1592-7; discussion 1597-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.06.114.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Since the development of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), there remains concerns regarding its durability, need for secondary procedures, and associated long-term morbidity. We compared these two approaches to evaluate secondary interventions and their respective long-term durability.

METHODS

All patients who had undergone endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair were identified from a prospectively maintained registry. Health system charts, medical communication, and national death indexes were reviewed. Secondary interventions were classified as vascular (aortic graft or remote) and nonvascular (incisional or gastrointestinal).

RESULTS

Between July 1985 and September 2009, 1908 patients underwent 1986 AAA repair procedures (EVAR = 1066; open = 920). Patients were followed up to 290 months (mean 27.6 ± 35.9) and identified with 427 surgical encounters (EVAR 233% to 21.9%; open 194% to 21.1%). Most encounters (338% to 74.6%) were related to vascular disease: 178 (EVAR = 131; open = 47) related to the aortic graft; 160 (EVAR = 93; open = 67) were related to nonaortic vascular disease. The remaining 89 surgical encounters included incisional hernias, small bowel obstruction, intra-abdominal abscesses, and wound dehiscence requiring operation. Of these 89 encounters (EVAR = 9; open = 80), 44 patients required surgical intervention and 36 required hospitalization without surgical procedure. Over the period of 100 months, the all-cause mortality rate was 25.2% after EVAR and 39.1% after open repair. One-year survival was 88.0% (SE 0.01) and 85.0% (SE 0.01), while 5-year survival was 58.0% (SE 0.02) and 53.0% (SE 0.02) for EVAR and open repair, respectively (log-rank P value < .0164). Seven-year survival was 46% (SE 0.03) for EVAR and 36% (SE 0.03) for open AAA repair.

CONCLUSION

EVAR requires more late secondary vascular interventions than open AAA repair, but patients who undergo open repair have more nonvascular long-term morbidity. Long-term survival is better after EVAR compared to open repair in this selected patient group.

摘要

简介

自血管内动脉瘤修复术(EVAR)发展以来,其耐久性、需要二次手术以及相关的长期发病率仍令人担忧。我们比较了这两种方法来评估二次干预及其各自的长期耐久性。

方法

从一个前瞻性维护的登记处确定了所有接受血管内和开放性腹主动脉瘤(AAA)修复的患者。审查了卫生系统图表、医疗沟通和国家死亡索引。二次干预分为血管(主动脉移植物或远处)和非血管(切口或胃肠道)。

结果

1985 年 7 月至 2009 年 9 月,1908 名患者接受了 1986 次 AAA 修复手术(EVAR = 1066;开放性 = 920)。患者随访至 290 个月(平均 27.6 ± 35.9),并确定了 427 次手术(EVAR = 233%至 21.9%;开放性 = 194%至 21.1%)。大多数手术(338%至 74.6%)与血管疾病有关:178 例(EVAR = 131;开放性 = 47)与主动脉移植物有关;160 例(EVAR = 93;开放性 = 67)与非主动脉血管疾病有关。其余 89 例手术包括切口疝、小肠梗阻、腹腔脓肿和需要手术的伤口裂开。在这 89 例手术中(EVAR = 9;开放性 = 80),44 名患者需要手术干预,36 名患者需要住院但无需手术。在 100 个月的时间内,EVAR 后全因死亡率为 25.2%,开放性修复后为 39.1%。一年生存率为 88.0%(SE 0.01)和 85.0%(SE 0.01),而 EVAR 和开放性修复的 5 年生存率分别为 58.0%(SE 0.02)和 53.0%(SE 0.02)(对数秩 P 值<.0164)。EVAR 的 7 年生存率为 46%(SE 0.03),开放性 AAA 修复的 36%(SE 0.03)。

结论

EVAR 需要比开放性 AAA 修复更多的晚期二次血管干预,但接受开放性修复的患者有更多的非血管长期发病率。在这个选定的患者群体中,与开放性修复相比,EVAR 的长期生存率更好。

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