Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa., USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2012 May;55(5):1242-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.11.088. Epub 2012 Jan 24.
To determine if there are any differences in outcomes between infrarenal fixation (IF) and suprarenal fixation (SF) endograft systems for the endovascular treatment (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with short, straight proximal aortic necks (<1.5 cm).
A retrospective review of 1379 EVAR procedures was performed between the years of 2002 and 2009 at a single institution. The charts and radiographic images of all patients were reviewed. Patients who underwent EVAR with AAA morphology with short proximal necks were stratified into two groups: IF, Gore Excluder (W. L. Gore, Flagstaff, Ariz) group and SF, Cook Zenith (Cook, Bloomington, Ind) group. The primary end point for the study was the presence of proximal type 1 endoleaks. Secondary end points were graft migration at 1- and 2-year follow-up and aneurysm sac regression. The groups' demographics and comorbidities were also compared.
A total of 1379 EVARS were performed during the study period and 84 were identified as having a short proximal aortic neck. Sixty patients were in the IF group and 24 in the SF group. The average follow-up period was 18.6 months (IF) and 18.5 months (SF). There was no difference in the average proximal neck length (1.19 cm IF vs 1.14 cm SF; P = not significant [NS]) or the preoperative AAA size (5.8 cm IF vs 5.9 cm SF; P = NS). There were no significant differences in age (76.6 years IF vs 74.8 years SF; P = .32), gender (IF 66.7% vs SF 21.88% men; P = .053), or length of stay (2.2 days IF vs 1.9 days SF; P = .39). The comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, and warfarin use) were also similar. There were five type 1a endoleaks in group IF and one in group SF (P = .44) identified at the 1-month follow-up; however, only one patient in the IF group underwent intervention for enlargement of the AAA sac. At 1 year, there was persistence of one type 1a endoleak in both groups, but these were deemed dead-end leaks as they did not fill the sac nor lead to aneurysm growth. There were no migrations (>0.5 cm) noted in either group. Sac regression was observed at an average rate of 0.24 cm/year in the IF group and 0.26 cm/year in the SF group (P = NS). There were no aneurysm ruptures during the study period.
There are no significant differences in endograft migration or in the incidence of early and late type 1a endoleaks between endografts that use IF (Gore Excluder) and SF (Cook Zenith) fixation for patients with short aortic necks undergoing EVAR.
确定在使用短、直近端主动脉颈(<1.5cm)进行腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的血管内治疗(血管内动脉瘤修复[EVAR])时,肾下固定(IF)和肾上固定(SF)内植物系统在结果上是否存在差异。
对 2002 年至 2009 年期间在一个机构进行的 1379 例 EVAR 手术进行回顾性分析。对所有患者的图表和影像学图像进行了回顾。将接受 AAA 形态学伴有短近端颈部的 EVAR 的患者分为两组:IF,戈尔 Excluder(W. L. Gore,Flagstaff,Ariz)组和 SF,库克 Zenith(库克,Bloomington,Ind)组。该研究的主要终点是存在近端 1 型内漏。次要终点是 1 年和 2 年随访时移植物迁移和动脉瘤囊消退。还比较了两组的人口统计学和合并症。
在研究期间共进行了 1379 例 EVAR,其中 84 例被确定为近端主动脉颈短。60 例患者在 IF 组,24 例在 SF 组。平均随访时间为 18.6 个月(IF)和 18.5 个月(SF)。近端颈长度的平均值无差异(1.19cm IF 与 1.14cm SF;P=无显著差异[NS])或术前 AAA 大小(5.8cm IF 与 5.9cm SF;P=NS)。年龄(76.6 岁 IF 与 74.8 岁 SF;P=0.32)、性别(IF 为 66.7%,SF 为 21.88%男性;P=0.053)或住院时间(2.2 天 IF 与 1.9 天 SF;P=0.39)无显著差异。合并症(糖尿病、高血压和华法林使用)也相似。IF 组有 5 例 1a 型内漏,SF 组有 1 例(P=0.44)在 1 个月随访时发现;然而,IF 组中只有 1 例患者因 AAA 囊增大而行介入治疗。在 1 年时,两组均存在 1 例持续的 1a 型内漏,但这些被认为是死端内漏,因为它们没有充满囊或导致动脉瘤生长。两组均未发生移植物(>0.5cm)迁移。IF 组的囊腔回缩率平均为每年 0.24cm,SF 组为每年 0.26cm(P=NS)。研究期间未发生动脉瘤破裂。
在使用 IF(戈尔 Excluder)和 SF(库克 Zenith)固定的内植物治疗短主动脉颈行 EVAR 的患者中,在移植物迁移或早期和晚期 1a 型内漏的发生率方面,肾下固定(IF)和肾上固定(SF)固定之间没有显著差异。