Suppr超能文献

髂血管区狭窄病变与慢性完全闭塞病变的血管内治疗结果对比

Outcomes of the Endovascular Treatment of Stenotic Lesions versus Chronic Total Occlusions in the Iliac Sector.

作者信息

Revuelta Suero Sergio, Martínez López Isaac, Hernández Mateo Manuela, Marqués de Marino Pablo, Cernuda Artero Iñaki, Cabrero Fernández Maday, Serrano Hernando Francisco Javier

机构信息

Servicio de Angiología y Cirugía Vascular, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.

Servicio de Angiología y Cirugía Vascular, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.

出版信息

Ann Vasc Surg. 2016 Jul;34:157-63. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2015.11.040. Epub 2016 May 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study compares outcomes of the endovascular treatment (EVT) of iliac artery occlusive disease according to whether the treated lesion is a stenosis or a chronic total occlusion (CTO).

METHODS

Patients undergoing EVT from 2003 to 2013 for iliac artery occlusive disease were identified and the lesions treated stratified into stenotic (Group 1, n = 375) or CTO (Group 2, n = 87). Patients were followed clinically and hemodynamically (thigh-brachial index, TBI). Comorbidities, procedural factors, and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups using Kaplan-Meier, Breslow, and Cox models.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixty-two iliac endovascular procedures in 378 patients were included in a retrospective study. The 2 groups only differed in preprocedural TBI [0.77 (Group 1) vs. 0.67 (Group 2), P < 0.001], lesion length [39.7 mm (Group 1) vs. 49.9 mm (Group 2), P < 0.001], and the use of a covered stent [11.6% (Group 1) vs. 46.2% (Group 2), P < 0.001]. The technical success rate was higher in Group 1 (99.2% vs. 89.7%, P < 0.001). Five early occlusions were recorded in Group 1 and 3 in Group 2 (1.3% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.146). Median follow-up was 34 months (1-113). At 12 and 36 months, stenotic lesions showed better primary (P1) and secondary (P2) patency rates [P1 93.0% and 85.8% vs. 83.1% and 74.7%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.90 (1.15-3.14), P = 0.018; P2 97.8% and 96.8% vs. 93.0% and 87.4%, HR 2.86 (1.39-5.90), P = 0.007] and freedom from reintervention (FFR) rates [91.6% and 83.5% vs. 84.1% and 78.9%, HR 1.51 (0.90-2.53), P = 0.132]. In a multivariate analysis, CTO showed a worse P2 than stenotic lesions [HR 2.81 (1.17-6.76), P = 0.021], yet no differences emerged in P1 [HR 1.41 (0.76-2.63), P = 0.277] or FFR [HR 1.43 (0.79-2.57), P = 0.237]. A lower preprocedural TBI was correlated with a greater risk of EVT failure in terms of patency and FFR (P < 0.05). The use of a stent shorter than 40 mm emerged as a protective factor with an HR for P1 of 3.68 (1.53-8.87) (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

EVT for iliac artery disease offers good outcomes in terms of long-term patency, although improved results were observed here for the treatment of stenotic lesions over CTO. Procedures performed in patients with a lower TBI and the use of a stent >40 mm were related to a worse stent patency.

摘要

背景

本研究根据治疗的病变是狭窄还是慢性完全闭塞(CTO),比较髂动脉闭塞性疾病的血管内治疗(EVT)结果。

方法

确定2003年至2013年因髂动脉闭塞性疾病接受EVT的患者,并将治疗的病变分为狭窄组(第1组,n = 375)或CTO组(第2组,n = 87)。对患者进行临床和血流动力学随访(股肱指数,TBI)。使用Kaplan-Meier、Breslow和Cox模型比较两组之间的合并症、手术因素和结果。

结果

一项回顾性研究纳入了378例患者的462例髂血管内手术。两组仅在术前TBI[0.77(第1组)对0.67(第2组),P < 0.001]、病变长度[39.7 mm(第1组)对49.9 mm(第2组),P < 0.001]以及覆膜支架的使用[11.6%(第1组)对46.2%(第2组),P < 0.001]方面存在差异。第1组的技术成功率更高(99.2%对89.7%,P < 0.001)。第1组记录到5例早期闭塞,第2组记录到3例(1.3%对3.8%,P = 0.146)。中位随访时间为34个月(1 - 113个月)。在12个月和36个月时,狭窄病变的原发性(P1)和继发性(P2)通畅率更高[P1为93.0%和85.8%对83.1%和74.7%,风险比(HR)1.90(1.15 - 3.14),P = 0.018;P2为97.8%和96.8%对93.0%和87.4%,HR 2.86(1.39 - 5.90),P = 0.007],且免于再次干预(FFR)率更高[91.6%和83.5%对84.1%和78.9%,HR 1.51(0.90 - 2.53),P = 0.132]。在多变量分析中,CTO的P2比狭窄病变更差[HR 2.81(1.17 - 6.76),P = 0.021],但在P1[HR 1.41(0.76 - 2.63),P = 0.277]或FFR[HR 1.43(0.79 - 2.57),P = 0.237]方面没有差异。术前TBI较低与EVT在通畅性和FFR方面失败的风险较高相关(P < 0.05)。使用长度小于40 mm的支架是一个保护因素,P1的HR为3.68(1.53 - 8.87)(P = 0.004)。

结论

髂动脉疾病的EVT在长期通畅性方面提供了良好的结果,尽管在此观察到狭窄病变的治疗结果优于CTO。在TBI较低的患者中进行的手术以及使用长度大于40 mm的支架与支架通畅性较差有关。

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