Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Mar;80:235-240. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.07.055. Epub 2021 Oct 14.
Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms undergoing EVAR with larger device diameters (34-36 mm) have worse outcomes due to proximal fixation failure and need for reintervention. We examine outcomes relating to standard fenestrated repair (FEVAR) with larger device diameters, and investigate whether a similar relationship exists.
Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained, single institution database of patients treated with the Cook ZFEN device between 2012-2017. Outcomes were stratified by device diameter into normal-diameter (ND,≤ 32 mm) and large-diameter (LD,34-36 mm). Primary endpoints were need for reintervention and composite type I/III endoleak.
One-hundred consecutive patients treated were identified for inclusion. Overall mean age was 73.6 years and mean aortic diameter was 59.1 mm. Mean follow-up was 22 months. A total of 26 (26%) patients were treated with LD devices. Number of target vessels per patient was 2.8 in both groups. Infrarenal neck length and diameter were significantly different in the LD and ND patients, respectively (2.6 mm vs. 4.7 mm (P < 0.01) and 30.1 mm vs. 23.4 mm (P < 0.01)). Percent graft oversizing was lower in the LD cohort (19% vs. 24%; P = 0.006). No difference was seen in overall mortality at 30-days (0% vs. 2%; P = 0.4) or at latest follow up (6% vs. 14%; P = 0.6). Reinterventions were not significantly different at 30 days, but were significantly higher over the follow-up period in the LD cohort (46.2 vs. 17.6%; P = 0.002). LD diameter was associated with reintervention on univariate (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.37), but not multivariate analysis. The composite endpoint of type I/III endoleak was higher in the LD cohort (15.4% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.004).
FEVAR requiring 34- or 36-mm device diameters is associated with an increased risk of composite type I/III endoleak and reintervention. Patients undergoing fenestrated repair requiring LD devices should be closely monitored, with consideration for proximal or open repair.
接受 EVAR 治疗的腹主动脉瘤患者,使用较大的器械直径(34-36mm)会导致近端固定失败和需要再次介入,预后较差。我们研究了与较大器械直径的标准分支修复术(FEVAR)相关的结果,并探讨了是否存在类似的关系。
回顾性分析了 2012 年至 2017 年期间使用 Cook ZFEN 器械治疗的患者的前瞻性维护的单一机构数据库。根据器械直径将患者分为正常直径(ND,≤32mm)和大直径(LD,34-36mm)。主要终点为需要再次介入和复合 I/III 型内漏。
确定了 100 例符合纳入标准的患者。总体平均年龄为 73.6 岁,平均主动脉直径为 59.1mm。平均随访时间为 22 个月。共有 26 例(26%)患者使用 LD 器械治疗。两组患者的靶血管数量均为 2.8 个。在 LD 和 ND 患者中,肾下颈长度和直径分别有显著差异(2.6mm 比 4.7mm(P<0.01)和 30.1mm 比 23.4mm(P<0.01))。LD 组的移植物过度扩张百分比较低(19%比 24%;P=0.006)。30 天内死亡率无差异(0%比 2%;P=0.4)或在最近随访时无差异(6%比 14%;P=0.6)。30 天内再介入无差异,但在 LD 组随访期间显著更高(46.2%比 17.6%;P=0.002)。LD 直径在单变量分析中与再介入相关(HR 1.19,95%CI 1.04-1.37),但在多变量分析中无相关性。LD 组的 I/III 型内漏复合终点较高(15.4%比 2.7%;P=0.004)。
需要 34 或 36mm 器械直径的 FEVAR 与复合 I/III 型内漏和再介入的风险增加相关。接受需要 LD 器械的分支修复术的患者应密切监测,考虑近端或开放修复。