Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Mar;59(3):599-607. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.09.050.
Despite improved short-term outcomes, concerns remain regarding durability of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the pathology-specific incidence of secondary aortic interventions (SAI) after TEVAR and their impact on survival.
Retrospective review was performed of all TEVAR procedures and SAI at one institution from 2004-2011. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate survival.
Of 585 patients, 72 (12%) required SAI at a median of 5.6 months (interquartile range, 1.4-14.2) with 22 (3.7%) requiring multiple SAI. SAI incidence differed significantly by pathology (P = .002) [acute dissection (21.3%), postsurgical (20.0%), chronic dissection (16.7%), degenerative aneurysm (10.8%), traumatic transection (8.1%), penetrating ulcer (1.5%), and other etiologies (14.8%)]. Most common indications after dissection were persistent false lumen flow and proximal/distal extension of disease. For degenerative aneurysms, SAI was performed primarily to treat type I/III endoleaks. SAI patients had a greater mean number of comorbidities (P < .0005), stents placed (P = .0002), and postoperative complications after the index TEVAR (P < .0005) compared with those without SAI. Freedom from SAI at 1 and 5 years (95% confidence interval) was estimated to be 86% (82%-90%) and 68% (57%-76%), respectively. There were no differences in survival (95% confidence interval) between patients requiring SAI and those who did not [SAI 1-year, 88% (77%-93%); 5-year, 51% (37%-63%); and no SAI 1-year, 82% (79%-85%); 5-year, 67% (62%-71%) (log-rank, P = .2)].
SAI after TEVAR is not uncommon, particularly in patients with dissection, but does not affect long-term survival. Aortic pathology is the most important variable impacting survival and dictated need, timing, and mode of SAI. The varying incidence of SAI by indication underscores the need for diligent surveillance protocols that should be pathology-specific.
尽管短期预后得到改善,但仍对胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)的耐久性存在担忧。本分析的目的是评估 TEVAR 后特定病理类型的二次主动脉介入(SAI)的发生率及其对生存的影响。
对 2004 年至 2011 年期间在一家机构进行的所有 TEVAR 手术和 SAI 进行回顾性分析。采用 Kaplan-Meier 分析估计生存率。
在 585 例患者中,72 例(12%)需要在中位时间 5.6 个月(四分位间距 1.4-14.2)进行 SAI,其中 22 例(3.7%)需要多次 SAI。SAI 的发生率因病理类型而显著不同(P=0.002)[急性夹层(21.3%)、手术后(20.0%)、慢性夹层(16.7%)、退行性动脉瘤(10.8%)、创伤性横断(8.1%)、穿透性溃疡(1.5%)和其他病因(14.8%)]。夹层后的主要指征为持续的假腔血流和近端/远端疾病的扩展。对于退行性动脉瘤,SAI 主要用于治疗 I/III 型内漏。SAI 患者的合并症平均数量较多(P<0.0005)、支架放置数量较多(P=0.0002),并且在指数 TEVAR 后发生的术后并发症也较多(P<0.0005)。无 SAI 的 1 年和 5 年无 SAI 率(95%置信区间)分别估计为 86%(82%-90%)和 68%(57%-76%)。需要 SAI 和不需要 SAI 的患者之间的生存率(95%置信区间)没有差异[SAI 1 年为 88%(77%-93%);5 年为 51%(37%-63%);无 SAI 1 年为 82%(79%-85%);5 年为 67%(62%-71%)(对数秩,P=0.2)]。
TEVAR 后发生 SAI 并不少见,特别是在夹层患者中,但不会影响长期生存率。主动脉病理是影响生存和决定 SAI 必要性、时机和方式的最重要变量。不同的 SAI 指征发生率强调了需要制定特定于病理类型的、严格的监测方案。