Spanos Konstantinos, Tsilimparis Nikolaos, Rohlffs Fiona, Wipper Sabine, Detter Christian, Behrendt Christian-Alexander, Debus Sebastian E, Kölbel Tilo
Department of Vascular Medicine, German Aortic Center Hamburg, University Heart Center, Hamburg, Germany -
Department of Vascular Medicine, German Aortic Center Hamburg, University Heart Center, Hamburg, Germany.
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2018 Aug;59(4):559-571. doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509.18.10412-5. Epub 2018 Jan 19.
This study evaluates the current experience on endovascular repair of the aortic arch pathologies, the feasibility and safety of the procedure.
A systematic review was performed. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Cochrane databases were searched with PRISMA methodology for published studies reporting on endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies from 2000 to 2018.
Thirteen non-randomized retrospective studies (either single or multicenter), two multicenter Registries and one multicenter non-randomized interventional study were included in the systematic review. The total number of patients who underwent total endovascular repair of the aortic arch pathology with either fenestrated, branched, or a combination of those devices or chimney technique was 952 patients (73%; 634/872 males, mean age ranging from 51 to 78 years). The technical success rate was 96.7% (921/952), while the 30-day mortality rate was 3.3% (32/952). The most common adverse events were endoleak type I (13.5%; 35/259), stroke (5.1%; 49/952), spinal cord ischemia (1.4%; 14/952) and retrograde dissection (1%; 8/952). During the follow-up period (mean ranging: 16.9 to 41.4 months; median ranging: 9 to 44.8 months) the total number of deaths was 31 (4.4%; 31/693). The total loss of supra-aortic vessel patency rate was 1.7% (14/803) and a re-intervention was needed in 50 patients (9%; 50/559; 11 open conversion).
Endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies is a feasible treatment option with good early and reasonable mid-term outcomes. This treatment modality approaches a level of maturity and may be considered as a solid alternative method of treatment.
本研究评估了目前主动脉弓病变血管腔内修复的经验、该手术的可行性和安全性。
进行了一项系统评价。采用PRISMA方法在MEDLINE、CENTRAL和Cochrane数据库中检索2000年至2018年发表的关于主动脉弓病变血管腔内修复的研究报告。
系统评价纳入了13项非随机回顾性研究(单中心或多中心)、2项多中心登记研究和1项多中心非随机干预研究。采用开窗、分支或两者结合的装置或烟囱技术对主动脉弓病变进行完全血管腔内修复的患者总数为952例(73%;男性634/872例,平均年龄51至78岁)。技术成功率为96.7%(921/952),30天死亡率为3.3%(32/952)。最常见的不良事件为Ⅰ型内漏(13.5%;35/259)、卒中(5.1%;49/952)、脊髓缺血(1.4%;14/952)和逆行夹层(1%;8/952)。在随访期(平均范围:16.9至41.4个月;中位数范围:9至44.8个月),死亡总数为31例(4.4%;31/693)。主动脉弓上血管通畅率的总丧失率为1.7%(14/803),50例患者(9%;50/559;11例开放转换)需要再次干预。
主动脉弓病变的血管腔内修复是一种可行的治疗选择,具有良好的早期和合理的中期疗效。这种治疗方式已接近成熟水平,可被视为一种可靠的替代治疗方法。