Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Oct;86:117-126. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2022.05.041. Epub 2022 Jul 6.
Aortic aneurysms are normally treated by an endovascular approach. Due to the lack of devices and increasing experience, there is a growing number of complex aneurysms undergoing repair by physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Previously, our practice was to target visceral vessels exclusively through upper extremity access. We have since then shifted to an all transfemoral approach when possible. This study aims to show the operative benefits of transfemoral only approaches.
Patients who underwent a PMEG at a tertiary center between 2015 and 2020 were included. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on branched vessel approach-transfemoral only versus axillary or composite (axillary and femoral). Forty-one patients had a pararenal or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) and 15 patients had more complex TAAA. Primary outcomes were operative time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, contrast, and blood loss. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and major adverse events. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between approach type and the main outcomes.
Fifty-six patients were included with 48% (n = 27) in the transfemoral group and 52% (n = 29) in the axillary/composite group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Intraoperative outcomes revealed significant increase in the average operative time (418 vs. 246 min, P < 0.001), in radiation exposure (2,755 vs. 1,740 mGy, P = 0.03), in fluoroscopy time (108 vs. 74 min, P = 0.01) and in blood loss (579 vs. 202 cc, P = 0.002) in the axillary/composite group compared to the transfemoral group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or major adverse events including stroke.
This study shows a transfemoral approach to complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair as opposed to axillary/composite approach has decreased operative time, radiation exposure, and fluoroscopy time and no significant differences in 30-day mortality or major adverse events. When treating complex aneurysms, improving efficiency is important to minimize morbidity to patients and operators.
主动脉瘤通常采用血管内方法治疗。由于缺乏设备和经验的增加,越来越多的复杂动脉瘤通过医生改良的腔内移植物(PMEG)进行修复。在此之前,我们的治疗方法是专门通过上肢入路来治疗内脏血管。此后,我们尽可能采用全股动脉入路。本研究旨在展示全股动脉入路的手术优势。
在一家三级中心接受 PMEG 的患者在 2015 年至 2020 年间被纳入研究。患者根据分支血管入路分为两组——全股动脉入路组与腋动脉或复合(腋动脉和股动脉)入路组。41 例患者为肾下或 IV 型胸腹主动脉瘤(TAAA),15 例患者为更复杂的 TAAA。主要结局是手术时间、辐射暴露、透视时间、造影剂用量和失血量。次要结局为 30 天死亡率和主要不良事件。线性回归模型用于评估入路类型与主要结局之间的关联。
共纳入 56 例患者,其中 48%(n=27)为全股动脉入路组,52%(n=29)为腋动脉/复合入路组。两组患者的基线特征相似。术中结果显示,全股动脉入路组的平均手术时间(418 分钟 vs. 246 分钟,P<0.001)、辐射暴露(2755 毫戈瑞 vs. 1740 毫戈瑞,P=0.03)、透视时间(108 分钟 vs. 74 分钟,P=0.01)和失血量(579 毫升 vs. 202 毫升,P=0.002)显著增加,而腋动脉/复合入路组则无明显差异。两组在 30 天死亡率或包括卒中在内的主要不良事件方面也无显著差异。
与腋动脉/复合入路相比,全股动脉入路治疗复杂血管内主动脉瘤修复术具有缩短手术时间、减少辐射暴露和透视时间的优势,且 30 天死亡率或主要不良事件无显著差异。在治疗复杂动脉瘤时,提高效率对于减少患者和术者的发病率至关重要。