Suh Yongsung, Ko Young-Guk, Shin Dong-Ho, Kim Jung-Sun, Kim Byeong-Keuk, Choi Donghoon, Hong Myeong-Ki, Jang Yangsoo
Department of Cardiology, Myongji Hospital, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea.
Division of Cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital & Cardiovascular Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Jul;62(1):68-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.02.031. Epub 2015 May 4.
This study investigated the outcomes of single-stent vs kissing-stents techniques in asymmetric complex aortoiliac bifurcation (ACAB) lesions.
We retrospectively investigated 80 consecutive patients (69 males, 66.6 ± 8.7 years) treated with a single stent and 30 patients (26 males, 67.1 ± 7.7 years) treated with kissing stents for ACAB between January 2005 and December 2012 from a single-center cohort. A ACAB lesion was defined as a symptomatic unilateral common iliac artery stenosis (>50%) combined with intermediate stenosis (30%-50%) in the contralateral common iliac artery ostium. The primary end point was the primary patency of the ACAB.
The baseline clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between the single-stent and the kissing-stents group. Technical success was achieved in all patients. The single-stent group required fewer stents (1.3 ± 0.5 vs 2.3 ± 0.8; P < .001) and less bilateral femoral access (55% vs 100%; P < .001). Two patients in the single-stent group (3%) required bailout kissing stents because of plaque shift to the contralateral side. The major complication rates were 8% in single-stent vs 13% in the kissing-stent group, which was similar (P = .399). At 3 years, the single-stent and kissing-stents group had similar rates of primary patency (89% vs 87%; P = .916) and target lesion revascularization-free survival (93% vs 87%; P = .462).
The single-stent technique in ACAB was safe and showed midterm outcomes comparable with those of kissing stents. Considering the benefits, such as fewer stents, less bilateral femoral access, and the availability of contralateral access for future intervention, the single-stent technique may be an advantageous treatment option in ACAB.
本研究调查了在不对称复杂性主髂动脉分叉(ACAB)病变中,单支架技术与双支架吻合法的治疗效果。
我们回顾性研究了2005年1月至2012年12月期间,来自单一中心队列的80例连续接受单支架治疗的患者(69例男性,年龄66.6±8.7岁)和30例接受双支架吻合法治疗的患者(26例男性,年龄67.1±7.7岁)。ACAB病变定义为有症状的单侧髂总动脉狭窄(>50%),合并对侧髂总动脉开口处中度狭窄(30%-50%)。主要终点是ACAB的初始通畅率。
单支架组和双支架吻合法组的基线临床特征无显著差异。所有患者均获得技术成功。单支架组所需支架更少(1.3±0.5比2.3±0.8;P<.001),双侧股动脉穿刺更少(55%比100%;P<.001)。单支架组有2例患者(3%)因斑块移位至对侧而需要补救性双支架吻合法。主要并发症发生率在单支架组为8%,在双支架吻合法组为13%,两者相似(P=.399)。3年时,单支架组和双支架吻合法组的初始通畅率相似(89%比87%;P=.916),无靶病变血运重建生存率相似(93%比87%;P=.462)。
ACAB病变的单支架技术是安全的,中期效果与双支架吻合法相当。考虑到其优势,如支架使用更少、双侧股动脉穿刺更少以及保留对侧入路以备未来干预,单支架技术可能是ACAB病变的一种优势治疗选择。