Suppr超能文献

Onyx 与线圈栓塞治疗 II 型内漏。

Onyx versus coil embolization for the treatment of type II endoleaks.

机构信息

Department of Vascular Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Department of Interventional Radiology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2021 Jun;73(6):1966-1972. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.10.069. Epub 2020 Nov 27.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Little evidence is available supporting the optimal treatment of type II endoleaks associated with aortic sac growth. Previous studies have lacked comparisons between treatment methods and long-term follow-up. The purpose of the present study was to review our center's experience with the treatment of type II endoleaks comparing Onyx (a liquid embolization agent consisting of ethylene vinyl alcohol; Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) embolization and coil embolization.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a vascular surgery database was performed to identify all patients who had undergone embolization of a type II endoleak for aortic sac growth after endovascular aneurysm repair from 2005 to 2018. The Onyx and coil embolization groups were compared using univariate statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients had undergone 77 embolization procedures for type II endoleaks with either Onyx (27 patients; 37 procedures) or coils (31 patients; 40 procedures). The average aneurysm size at embolization was larger in the Onyx group (77.9 ± 15.1 mm) compared with coil embolization (73.4 ± 11.9 mm). The mean follow-up was 57 months for the Onyx group and 74 months for the coil embolization group. Of the 27 patients who had undergone Onyx embolization, 2 (7.4%) had required graft explantation compared with 5 of the 31 patients (16.1%) who had undergone coil embolization (P = .33). The results of the per-patient analysis showed that the coil embolization group had a significantly greater rate of the need for further reintervention compared with the Onyx group (55% vs 19%; P < .01). Clinical success was observed in 13 patients (48%) in the Onyx embolization group compared with 10 patients (32%) in the coil embolization group (P = .04). Two patients in each group had presented with secondary rupture of the aneurysm sac after attempted embolization.

CONCLUSIONS

Type II endoleaks associated with sac growth treated with Onyx were less likely to require further reinterventions than were those treated with coil embolization. A trend was found toward a greater need for endovascular aneurysm repair explant after coil embolization. With a high rate of further reintervention and potential for sac rupture, diligent follow-up is required after attempted type II embolization, regardless of the technique used.

摘要

目的

目前关于治疗与主动脉瘤囊增大相关的 II 型内漏的最佳方法,相关证据有限。既往研究缺乏对不同治疗方法的比较和长期随访。本研究旨在回顾本中心采用 Onyx(一种由乙烯-乙烯醇组成的液体栓塞剂;美敦力,明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯市)栓塞和线圈栓塞治疗 II 型内漏的经验。

方法

对血管外科数据库中前瞻性收集的数据进行回顾性分析,以确定 2005 年至 2018 年间接受血管内修复后因主动脉瘤囊增大而行 II 型内漏栓塞治疗的所有患者。采用单变量统计比较 Onyx 组和线圈组。

结果

共 58 例患者接受了 77 次栓塞治疗 II 型内漏,其中 27 例(37 次)采用 Onyx 治疗,31 例(40 次)采用线圈治疗。Onyx 组的平均瘤体直径(77.9±15.1)mm 大于线圈组(73.4±11.9)mm。Onyx 组的平均随访时间为 57 个月,线圈组为 74 个月。27 例接受 Onyx 栓塞治疗的患者中,有 2 例(7.4%)需要进行移植物取出,而 31 例接受线圈栓塞治疗的患者中,有 5 例(16.1%)需要进行移植物取出(P=0.33)。每位患者的分析结果显示,线圈组需要进一步干预的比例明显高于 Onyx 组(55%比 19%;P<0.01)。Onyx 栓塞组中有 13 例(48%)患者获得临床成功,而线圈栓塞组中只有 10 例(32%)患者获得临床成功(P=0.04)。两组各有 2 例患者在尝试栓塞治疗后出现动脉瘤囊继发性破裂。

结论

与线圈栓塞治疗的 II 型内漏相比,Onyx 治疗的瘤囊增大 II 型内漏患者需要进一步干预的可能性较小。线圈栓塞后行血管内修复移植物取出的需求呈增加趋势。无论采用何种技术,尝试 II 型栓塞治疗后,由于存在较高的进一步干预率和潜在的瘤囊破裂风险,需要进行仔细的随访。

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