Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Ala.
Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Mar;73(3):826-835. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.05.073. Epub 2020 Jul 3.
Previous publications have clearly established a correlation between timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and complications after treatment of complicated acute type B aortic dissection (ATBAD). However, the temporal association of TEVAR with morbidity after uncomplicated presentations is poorly understood and has not previously been examined using real-world national data. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to determine whether TEVAR timing of uncomplicated ATBAD (UATBAD) is associated with postoperative complications.
The Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR and complex endovascular aneurysm repair registry was analyzed from 2010 to 2019. Procedures performed for non-dissection-related disease as well as for ATBAD with malperfusion or rupture were excluded. Because of inherent differences between timing cohorts, propensity score matching was performed to ensure like comparisons. Univariate and multivariable analysis after matching was used to determine differences between timing groups (symptom onset to TEVAR: acute, 1-14 days; subacute, 15-90 days) for postoperative mortality, in-hospital complications, and reintervention.
A total of 688 cases meeting inclusion criteria were identified. After matching 187 patients in each of the 1- to 14-day and 15- to 90-day treatment groups, there were no statistically significant differences between groups. On univariate analysis, the 1- to 14-day treatment group had a higher proportion of cases requiring reintervention within 30 days (15.3%) compared with UATBAD patients undergoing TEVAR within 15 to 90 days (5.2%; P = .02). There was also a difference (P = .007) at 1 year, with 33.8% of the 1- to 14-day UATBAD patients undergoing reintervention compared with 14.5% for the 15- to 90-day group. There were no statistically significant differences on multivariable analysis for long-term survival, complications, or long-term reintervention. There was a trend toward significance (P = .08) with the 1- to 14-day group having 2.3 times the odds of requiring an in-hospital reintervention compared with the 15- to 90-day group.
Timing of TEVAR for UATBAD does not appear to predict mortality or postoperative complications. However, there is a strong association between repair within 1 to 14 days and higher risk of reintervention. This may in part be related to the 1- to 14-day group's representing an inherently higher anatomic or physiologic risk population that cannot be entirely accounted for with propensity analysis. The role of optimal timing to intervention should be incorporated into future study design of TEVAR trials for UATBAD.
先前的出版物明确证实了胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)的时机与复杂急性 B 型主动脉夹层(ATBAD)治疗后的并发症之间存在相关性。然而,未经处理的 ATBAD(UATBAD)中 TEVAR 与发病率之间的时间关联尚未得到很好的理解,并且以前尚未使用真实世界的全国性数据进行检查。因此,本分析的目的是确定 UATBAD 的 TEVAR 时机是否与术后并发症相关。
从 2010 年至 2019 年,对血管质量倡议 TEVAR 和复杂血管内动脉瘤修复登记处进行了分析。排除了与夹层无关的疾病以及灌注不良或破裂的 ATBAD 进行的手术。由于时间队列之间存在固有差异,因此进行了倾向评分匹配以确保类似的比较。匹配后进行单变量和多变量分析,以确定症状发作至 TEVAR 时间(急性,1-14 天;亚急性,15-90 天)之间的术后死亡率、住院并发症和再干预之间的差异。
确定了 688 例符合纳入标准的病例。在匹配每组 187 例 1 至 14 天和 15 至 90 天的治疗组后,两组之间没有统计学上的显著差异。在单变量分析中,与在 15 至 90 天内接受 TEVAR 的 UATBAD 患者相比,在 1 至 14 天内治疗的患者在 30 天内需要再次干预的比例更高(15.3%对 5.2%;P=0.02)。在 1 年时也存在差异(P=0.007),1 至 14 天的 UATBAD 患者中有 33.8%需要再次干预,而 15 至 90 天的患者有 14.5%。多变量分析显示,长期生存率、并发症或长期再干预之间无统计学差异。有一个趋势具有统计学意义(P=0.08),即与 15 至 90 天组相比,1 至 14 天组再次住院干预的可能性高 2.3 倍。
UATBAD 的 TEVAR 时机似乎不会预测死亡率或术后并发症。然而,在 1 至 14 天内修复与更高的再干预风险之间存在很强的关联。这可能部分是由于 1 至 14 天组代表了一种固有的更高的解剖或生理风险人群,这不能完全通过倾向分析来解释。干预的最佳时机应纳入 UATBAD 的 TEVAR 试验的未来研究设计中。