Plotkin Anastasia, Vares-Lum Diana, Magee Gregory A, Han Sukgu M, Fleischman Fernando, Rowe Vincent L
Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Keck Medical Center of USC, Los Angeles, Calif.
College of Letters and Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif.
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Oct;74(4):1143-1151. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.04.032. Epub 2021 Apr 30.
Aortic dissection can result in devastating cerebral, visceral, renal, spinal, and extremity ischemia. We describe the management and outcomes of patients presenting with aortic dissection and lower extremity malperfusion (LEM).
A single-center institutional aortic database was queried for patients with aortic dissection and LEM from 2011 to 2019. The primary end point was resolution of LEM after aortic repair. Secondary end points were amputation, in-hospital mortality, time to intervention, and postoperative complications.
Of 769 patients with aortic dissection, 42 (5.5%) presented acutely with LEM: 16 with Stanford type A and 26 Stanford type B aortic dissection (age 55 ± 13 years; 90% men). Most presented as Rutherford IIB symptoms, but patients with type A had Rutherford III more often, compared with those with type B. Aortic repair was performed before limb interventions in 36 patients (86%; 19 TEVAR, 16 open arch and ascending repair, and 1 open descending aortic repair with fenestration). Seven (19%) had immediate failure with persistent malperfusion recognized in the operating room and underwent additional limb intervention, including extra-anatomic revascularization (n = 4), iliac stenting (n = 2), and femoral patch with septal fenestration or tacking (n = 2). Three patients (8%) had early delayed failure requiring extra-anatomic bypass in two and amputation in one. In contrast, six patients had limb-first intervention with extra-anatomic revascularization. None had immediate failure, but one-half had early delayed failure requiring proximal aortic intervention: two TEVAR and one open aortic fenestration. Limb-first patients were more likely to have early delayed failure compared with aortic dissection treated first patients (50% vs 8%; P = .029). The amputation rate was 2%, occurring in one type A patient. The overall in-hospital mortality was 7% (n = 3), with no difference between type A and type B aortic dissection. There was no difference in surgical site infection, postoperative dialysis need, stroke, and myocardial infarction.
In patients presenting with acute aortic dissection with limb ischemia, resolution of the malperfusion occurs in the majority of cases after primary aortic dissection intervention, emphasizing the usefulness of urgent TEVAR for complicated type B and open repair of type A before lower extremity intervention. Limb-first interventions have a higher early delayed failure rate and thus require more frequent reoperation. However, the overall amputation rate in LEM owing to aortic dissection remains low.
主动脉夹层可导致严重的脑、内脏、肾、脊髓及肢体缺血。我们描述了主动脉夹层合并下肢灌注不良(LEM)患者的治疗及预后情况。
查询2011年至2019年单中心机构主动脉数据库中主动脉夹层合并LEM的患者。主要终点是主动脉修复后LEM的缓解情况。次要终点包括截肢、住院死亡率、干预时间及术后并发症。
在769例主动脉夹层患者中,42例(5.5%)急性出现LEM:16例为斯坦福A型,26例为斯坦福B型主动脉夹层(年龄55±13岁;90%为男性)。大多数表现为卢瑟福IIB级症状,但与B型患者相比,A型患者出现卢瑟福III级症状的情况更常见。36例患者(86%)在肢体干预前进行了主动脉修复(19例采用胸主动脉腔内修复术,16例进行了开放弓部及升主动脉修复,1例进行了带开窗的开放降主动脉修复)。7例(19%)出现即刻失败,术中发现持续灌注不良,随后进行了额外的肢体干预,包括解剖外血管重建(n = 4)、髂动脉支架置入(n = 2)以及股动脉补片加间隔开窗或固定术(n = 2)。3例患者(8%)出现早期延迟失败,其中2例需要进行解剖外旁路手术,1例需要截肢。相比之下,6例患者首先进行了肢体干预,采用解剖外血管重建。均未出现即刻失败,但其中一半出现早期延迟失败,需要进行近端主动脉干预:2例采用胸主动脉腔内修复术,1例进行了开放主动脉开窗术。与首先治疗主动脉夹层的患者相比,首先进行肢体干预的患者更易出现早期延迟失败(50%对8%;P = 0.029)。截肢率为2%,发生在1例A型患者中。总体住院死亡率为7%(n = 3),A型和B型主动脉夹层之间无差异。手术部位感染、术后透析需求、中风及心肌梗死方面无差异。
对于急性主动脉夹层合并肢体缺血的患者,大多数情况下在原发性主动脉夹层干预后灌注不良可得到缓解,这强调了对于复杂B型紧急进行胸主动脉腔内修复术以及对于A型在下肢干预前进行开放修复的有效性。首先进行肢体干预的早期延迟失败率较高,因此需要更频繁地再次手术。然而,主动脉夹层导致的LEM总体截肢率仍然较低。