Alonso Pérez Manuel, Llaneza Coto José Manuel, Del Castro Madrazo José Antonio, Fernández Prendes Carlota, González Gay Mario, Zanabili Al-Sibbai Amer
Vascular Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Vascular Surgery Department, Hospital Fundación de Jove, Gijón, Spain.
J Thorac Dis. 2017 May;9(Suppl 6):S465-S477. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.03.87.
Conventional open surgery still remains as the gold standard of care for aortic arch and thoracoabdominal pathology. In centers of excellence, open repair of the arch has been performed with 5% immediate mortality and a low rate of complications; however overall mortality rates are around 15%, being up to 40% of all patients rejected for treatment due to their age or comorbidities. For thoracoabdominal aortic pathology, data reported from centers of excellence show immediate mortality rates from 5% to 19%, spinal cord ischemia from 2.7% to 13.2%, and renal failure needing dialysis from 4.6% to 5.6%. For these reasons, different alternatives that use endovascular techniques, including debranching procedures, have been developed. The reported results for hybrid debranching procedures are controversial and difficult to interpret because series are retrospective, heterogenic and including a small number of patients. Clearly, an important selection bias exists: debranching procedures are performed in elderly patients with more comorbidities and with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms that have more complex and extensive disease. Considering this fact, debranching procedures still remain a useful alternative: for aortic arch pathology debranching techniques can avoid or reduce the time of extracorporeal circulation (ECC) or cardiac arrest which may be beneficial in high-risk patients that otherwise would be rejected for treatment. And compared to pure endovascular techniques, they can be used in emergency cases with applicability in a wide range of anatomies. For thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, they are mainly useful when other lesser invasive endovascular options are not feasible due to anatomical limitations or when they are not available in cases where delaying the intervention is not an option.
传统的开放手术仍然是治疗主动脉弓和胸腹病变的金标准。在一些卓越中心,主动脉弓的开放修复手术的即时死亡率为5%,并发症发生率较低;然而,总体死亡率约为15%,高达40%的患者因年龄或合并症而被拒绝治疗。对于胸腹主动脉病变,卓越中心报告的数据显示,即时死亡率为5%至19%,脊髓缺血发生率为2.7%至13.2%,需要透析的肾衰竭发生率为4.6%至5.6%。由于这些原因,已经开发出了包括去分支手术在内的使用血管内技术的不同替代方案。关于杂交去分支手术的报告结果存在争议且难以解释,因为相关系列研究是回顾性的、异质性的,且患者数量较少。显然,存在一个重要的选择偏倚:去分支手术是在合并症较多的老年患者以及病变更复杂、范围更广的胸腹主动脉瘤患者中进行的。考虑到这一事实,去分支手术仍然是一种有用的替代方案:对于主动脉弓病变,去分支技术可以避免或减少体外循环(ECC)或心脏骤停的时间,这对于那些否则会被拒绝治疗的高危患者可能是有益的。与单纯的血管内技术相比,它们可用于紧急情况,适用于多种解剖结构。对于胸腹主动脉瘤,当由于解剖学限制其他侵入性较小的血管内选择不可行时,或者在不能延迟干预的情况下没有其他选择时,它们主要是有用的。