Suppr超能文献

胸主动脉腔内修复术的替代入路技术:开放髂血管转流术与腔内转流术

Alternative access techniques with thoracic endovascular aortic repair, open iliac conduit versus endoconduit technique.

作者信息

van Bogerijen Guido H W, Williams David M, Eliason Jonathan L, Dasika Narasimham L, Deeb G Michael, Patel Himanshu J

机构信息

Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, Mich.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2014 Nov;60(5):1168-1176. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.05.006. Epub 2014 Jul 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Iliac artery endoconduits (ECs) have emerged as important alternatives to retroperitoneal open iliac conduits (ROICs) to aid in transfemoral delivery for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We present, to our knowledge, the first comparative analysis between these alternative approaches.

METHODS

All patients undergoing TEVAR with either ROIC (n = 23) or internal EC (n = 16) were identified. The mean age of the cohort was 72.4 ± 11.5 years (82.1% female). Device delivery was accomplished in 100% of cases. The primary outcome was the presence of iliofemoral complications, which was defined as: (1) the inability to successfully deliver the device into the aorta via the ROIC or EC approach; (2) rupture, dissection, or thrombosis of the ipsilateral iliac or femoral artery; and/or (3) retroperitoneal hematoma requiring exploration and evacuation. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and rates of limb loss, claudication, or revascularization.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 10.1 months, the incidence of iliofemoral complications was less for the EC approach compared with the ROIC technique (12.5% vs 26.1%; P = .301). No patients sustained limb loss. Revascularization was performed in two patients after ROIC. Lower extremity claudication occurred in one patient after EC. Early mortality was seen in one patient who underwent EC. Two-year Kaplan-Meier survival for the entire cohort was 74.4%, and did not differ between groups (ROIC, 78.3% vs EC, 68.8%; P = .350). Two-year Kaplan-Meier freedom from limb loss, claudication, or revascularization did not differ between the two approaches (ROIC, 91.3% vs EC, 93.8%; P = .961).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this early comparative evaluation of alternative access routes for TEVAR suggest that an EC approach is safe, effective, and associated with low rates of early mortality and late iliofemoral complications. In selected patients, the EC may be considered an appropriate delivery route for transfemoral TEVAR.

摘要

背景

髂动脉内导管(EC)已成为腹膜后开放性髂动脉导管(ROIC)的重要替代方法,有助于经股动脉进行胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)。据我们所知,我们首次对这些替代方法进行了比较分析。

方法

确定所有接受ROIC(n = 23)或内置EC(n = 16)治疗的TEVAR患者。该队列的平均年龄为72.4±11.5岁(82.1%为女性)。100%的病例完成了器械输送。主要结局是髂股并发症的发生,其定义为:(1)无法通过ROIC或EC方法成功将器械输送至主动脉;(2)同侧髂动脉或股动脉破裂、夹层或血栓形成;和/或(3)需要探查和引流的腹膜后血肿。次要结局是30天死亡率以及肢体丢失、跛行或血运重建率。

结果

在中位随访10.1个月时,与ROIC技术相比,EC方法的髂股并发症发生率更低(12.5%对26.1%;P = 0.301)。没有患者出现肢体丢失。ROIC术后有两名患者进行了血运重建。EC术后有一名患者出现下肢跛行。接受EC治疗的一名患者出现早期死亡。整个队列的两年Kaplan-Meier生存率为74.4%,两组之间无差异(ROIC为78.3%,EC为68.8%;P = 0.350)。两种方法在两年Kaplan-Meier无肢体丢失、跛行或血运重建方面无差异(ROIC为91.3%,EC为93.8%;P = 0.961)。

结论

对TEVAR替代入路的这一早期比较评估结果表明,EC方法安全、有效,且早期死亡率和晚期髂股并发症发生率较低。在选定的患者中,EC可被视为经股动脉TEVAR的合适输送途径。

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