Iannuzzi James C, Stapleton Sahael M, Bababekov Yanik J, Chang David, Lancaster Robert T, Conrad Mark F, Cambria Richard P, Patel Virendra I
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Codman Center, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass.
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Dec;68(6):1649-1655. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.04.034. Epub 2018 Jun 15.
In uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD), the "gold standard" has been nonoperative treatment with medical therapy, although this has been questioned by studies demonstrating improved outcomes in those treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). This study assessed long-term survival after acute UTBAD comparing medical therapy, open repair, and TEVAR.
The California Office of Statewide Hospital Planning Development database was analyzed from 2000 to 2010 for adult patients with acute UTBAD. Patients with nonemergent admission for aortic dissection, type A dissection, trauma, bowel ischemia, lower extremity ischemia, acidosis, or shock were excluded. The cohort was stratified by treatment type at index admission into medical therapy, open surgical repair, and TEVAR. Multivariable regression and survival analyses were used to evaluate the association of treatment type with long-term overall survival.
There were 9165 cases, 95% medical therapy, 2% open repair, and 2.9% TEVAR. The mean age was 66 ± 15 years, with 39% female, 2.4% cocaine users, 18% with congestive heart failure, and 17% with Charlson Comorbidity Index >3. Mean inpatient costs were $57,000 for medical therapy, $200,000 for open repair, and $130,000 for TEVAR (P < .01). Inpatient mortality was 6.5% overall, 6.3% for medical therapy, 14% for open repair, and 7.1% for TEVAR (P < .01). One-year and 5-year survivals were 84% and 60% in medical therapy, 76% and 67% in open repair, and 85% and 76% in TEVAR (log-rank, P < .01). On risk-adjusted multivariable analysis, TEVAR had improved survival compared with medical therapy (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8; P < .01), with no difference between open repair and medical therapy (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.3; P < .01).
This statewide study on survival after acute UTBADs shows an independent survival advantage for TEVAR over medical therapy. These data add further evidence for a paradigm shift in acute management of type B dissection in favor of early TEVAR.
在单纯性B型主动脉夹层(UTBAD)中,“金标准”一直是药物治疗的非手术治疗方法,尽管一些研究对其提出了质疑,这些研究表明接受胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)的患者预后有所改善。本研究评估了急性UTBAD患者接受药物治疗、开放修复和TEVAR后的长期生存率。
分析2000年至2010年加利福尼亚州全州医院规划与发展办公室数据库中成年急性UTBAD患者。排除因主动脉夹层、A型夹层、创伤、肠缺血、下肢缺血、酸中毒或休克而急诊入院的患者。根据首次入院时的治疗类型将队列分为药物治疗、开放手术修复和TEVAR。采用多变量回归和生存分析来评估治疗类型与长期总生存率的关联。
共有9165例病例,95%接受药物治疗,2%接受开放修复,2.9%接受TEVAR。平均年龄为66±15岁,女性占39%,可卡因使用者占2.4%,充血性心力衰竭患者占18%,Charlson合并症指数>3的患者占17%。药物治疗的平均住院费用为57,000美元,开放修复为200,000美元,TEVAR为130,000美元(P<.01)。总体住院死亡率为6.5%,药物治疗为6.3%,开放修复为14%,TEVAR为7.1%(P<.01)。药物治疗的1年和5年生存率分别为84%和60%,开放修复为76%和67%,TEVAR为85%和76%(对数秩检验,P<.01)。在风险调整的多变量分析中,与药物治疗相比,TEVAR的生存率有所提高(风险比,0.68;95%置信区间,0.6-0.8;P<.01),开放修复与药物治疗之间无差异(风险比,1.0;95%置信区间,0.8-1.3;P<.01)。
这项关于急性UTBAD患者生存情况的全州性研究表明,TEVAR相对于药物治疗具有独立的生存优势。这些数据为B型夹层急性治疗模式向早期TEVAR转变提供了进一步的证据。