Suppr超能文献

无症状腘动脉瘤患者开放修复与血管内治疗的决策分析模型。

Decision analysis model of open repair versus endovascular treatment in patients with asymptomatic popliteal artery aneurysms.

机构信息

Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn; Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2014 Mar;59(3):651-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.09.026. Epub 2013 Nov 16.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Repair is indicated of asymptomatic popliteal artery aneurysms (aPAAs) that are >2 cm. Endovascular PAA repair with covered stents (stenting) is increasingly used. It is, however, unclear when an endovascular approach is preferred to traditional open repair with great saphenous vein bypass (GSVB). The goal of this study was to assess the treatment options for aPAAs using decision analysis.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed and a hypothetic cohort of patients with aPAAs was analyzed. GSVB, stenting, and nonoperative management with optimal medical treatment (OMT) were compared. Operative mortality, patency rates, quality-of-life values, and costs were determined by comprehensive review of the best available evidence. The main outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness and number of reinterventions.

RESULTS

For a 65-year-old male patient with a 2.0-cm aPAA and without significant comorbidities, probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that intervention is preferred over OMT (5.77 QALYs, 95% credibility interval [CI], 5.43-6.11; OMT). GSVB treatment for this patient results in slightly higher QALYs than stent placement, with a predicted 8.43 QALYs (GSVB: 95% CI, 8.21-8.64) vs 8.07 QALYs (stenting: 95% CI, 7.84-8.29), a difference of 0.36 QALYs (95% CI, 0.14-0.58). Furthermore, costs are higher for stenting ($40,464; 95% CI, $34,814-$46,242) vs GSVB ($21,618; 95% CI, $15,932-$28,070), and more reinterventions are required after stenting (1.03 per patient) vs GSVB (0.52 per patient), making GSVB the preferred strategy for all outcomes considered. Stenting is preferred in patients who are at high risk for open repair (>6% 30-day mortality) or if the 5-year primary patency rates of stenting increase to 80%. For very old patients (>95 years) and patients with a very short life expectancy (<1.5 years), OMT yields higher QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

GSVB is the preferred treatment in 65-year-old patients with aPAAs for all outcomes considered. However, patients at high risk for open repair or without suitable vein should be considered as candidates for endovascular repair. Very elderly patients and patients with a short life expectancy are best treated with OMT. Further improvement of endovascular techniques that increase patency rates of endovascular stents could make this the preferred therapy for more patients in the future.

摘要

目的

对于无症状的腘动脉动脉瘤(aPAA)>2cm,建议进行修复。越来越多地使用带覆盖支架的血管内 PAA 修复(支架置入术)。然而,目前尚不清楚在何种情况下,血管内方法优于传统的大隐静脉旁路转流术(GSVB)治疗。本研究的目的是使用决策分析评估 aPAA 的治疗选择。

方法

开发了一个马尔可夫模型,并对一组患有 aPAA 的假设患者进行了分析。比较了 GSVB、支架置入术和最佳药物治疗(OMT)的非手术治疗。通过全面审查最佳可用证据确定手术死亡率、通畅率、生活质量值和成本。主要结局是质量调整生命年(QALYs)。次要结局是成本效益和再干预次数。

结果

对于一名 65 岁男性患者,其患有 2.0cm 的 aPAA,且无明显合并症,概率敏感性分析表明,干预优于 OMT(5.77 QALYs,95%置信区间[CI],5.43-6.11;OMT)。对于该患者,GSVB 治疗的 QALY 略高于支架置入术,预计 8.43 QALY(GSVB:95%CI,8.21-8.64)与 8.07 QALY(支架置入术:95%CI,7.84-8.29),差异为 0.36 QALY(95%CI,0.14-0.58)。此外,支架置入术的成本较高(40464 美元;95%CI,34814 美元-46242 美元),支架置入术的再干预次数较多(每例 1.03 次),而 GSVB 每例 0.52 次(95%CI,0.14-0.58),因此,GSVB 是所有考虑因素的首选策略。支架置入术适用于开放修复风险较高的患者(>6%的 30 天死亡率),或支架置入术的 5 年初始通畅率提高至 80%时。对于非常高龄的患者(>95 岁)和预期寿命很短的患者(<1.5 年),OMT 可获得更高的 QALY。

结论

对于所有考虑因素,GSVB 是 65 岁患有 aPAA 患者的首选治疗方法。然而,对于开放修复风险较高或无合适静脉的患者,应考虑血管内修复作为候选治疗方法。非常高龄的患者和预期寿命较短的患者,最好采用 OMT 治疗。进一步提高血管内技术,提高血管内支架的通畅率,可能会使更多患者成为未来的首选治疗方法。

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