血管内腹主动脉瘤修复的中期结果：使用说明书（IFU）病例与非 IFU 病例的比较。
Midterm results of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: comparison of instruction-for-use (IFU) cases and non-IFU cases.
机构信息
Department of Radiology, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama-shi, Wakayama, 641-8510, Japan.
出版信息
Jpn J Radiol. 2013 Sep;31(9):585-92. doi: 10.1007/s11604-013-0223-7. Epub 2013 Jun 13.
PURPOSE
To investigate the midterm results of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and compare the endoleak (EL) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) prognoses between instruction-for-use (IFU) patients and non-IFU patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Of 124 patients (104 men, 20 women; mean age 76.2 years; age range 58-93 years) with AAA who underwent EVAR with the Zenith (68 patients) or Excluder device (56) and were analyzed, 86 were IFU and 38 non-IFU.
RESULTS
The mean absorbed dose of radiation exposure was 1907 mGy in the IFU group and 2283 mGy in the non-IFU group (p = 0.013). Thirty-five patients experienced EL: 8 (6.5 %) type I and 27 (21.8 %) type II. Type I ELs were observed in 3 patients in the IFU group (3.5 %) and 5 patients in the non-IFU group (13.2 %). Of the 14 patients with AAA diameter expansion of ≥ 5 mm, 6 (6/86, 7.0 %) belonged to the IFU group and 8 (8/38, 21.1 %) to the non-IFU group (p = 0.027).
CONCLUSION
The frequency of AAA expansion ≥ 5 mm was higher in non-IFU patients than in IFU patients. Therefore, careful follow-up is necessary for non-IFU patients rather than IFU patients.
目的
研究腹主动脉瘤修复术（EVAR）的中期结果，并比较使用说明（IFU）患者和非 IFU 患者的内漏（EL）和腹主动脉瘤（AAA）预后。
材料和方法
对 124 例接受 EVAR 的 AAA 患者（104 例男性，20 例女性；平均年龄 76.2 岁；年龄 58-93 岁）进行分析，其中 Zenith （68 例）或 Excluder 装置（56 例），86 例为 IFU，38 例为非 IFU。
结果
IFU 组的平均吸收辐射剂量为 1907 mGy，非 IFU 组为 2283 mGy（p = 0.013）。35 例患者出现 EL：8 例（6.5%）为 I 型，27 例（21.8%）为 II 型。IFU 组有 3 例（3.5%）和非 IFU 组有 5 例（13.2%）患者出现 I 型 EL。在 14 例 AAA 直径扩张≥5mm 的患者中，6 例（6/86，7.0%）属于 IFU 组，8 例（8/38，21.1%）属于非 IFU 组（p = 0.027）。
结论
非 IFU 患者的 AAA 扩张≥5mm 的频率高于 IFU 患者。因此，非 IFU 患者需要更密切的随访，而非 IFU 患者。
Zotero 插件