Suppr超能文献

既往腹主动脉瘤修复术后破裂的临床表现、手术治疗及长期预后

Clinical presentation, operative management, and long-term outcomes of rupture after previous abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

作者信息

Sen Indrani, Kanzafarova Irina, Yonkus Jennifer, Mendes Bernardo C, Colglazier Jill J, Shuja Fahad, DeMartino Randall R, Kalra Manju, Rasmussen Todd E

机构信息

Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2023 Feb;77(2):396-405.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.08.005. Epub 2022 Oct 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the presentation trends, intervention, and survival of patients who had been treated for late abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture (LAR) after open repair (OR) or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data from a single-center, retrospective database for patients treated for LAR from 2000 to 2020. The end points were the 30-day mortality, major postoperative complication, and survival. The outcomes between LAR managed with EVAR (group I) vs OR were compared (group II).

RESULTS

Of 390 patients with infrarenal aortic rupture, 40 (10%) had experienced aortic rupture after prior aortic repair and comprised the LAR cohort (34 men; age 78 ± 8 years). LAR had occurred before EVAR in 30 and before OR in 10 patients. LAR was more common in the second half of the study with 32 patients after 2010. LAR after prior OR was secondary to ruptured para-anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. After initial EVAR, LAR had occurred despite reintervention in 17 patients (42%). The time to LAR was shorter after prior EVAR than after OR (6 ± 4 vs 12 ± 4 years, respectively; P = .003). Treatment for LAR was EVAR for 25 patients (63%; group I) and OR for 15 (37%, group II). LAR after initial OR was managed with endovascular salvage for 8 of 10 patients. Endovascular management was more frequent in the latter half of the study period. In group I, fenestrated repair had been used for seven patients (28%). Salvage for the remaining cases was feasible with EVAR, aortic cuffs, or limb extensions. The incidence of free rupture, time to treatment, 30-day mortality (8% vs 13%; P = .3), complications (32% vs 60%; P = .1), and disposition were similar between the two groups. Those in group I had had less blood loss (660 vs 3000 mL; P < .001) and less need for dialysis (0% vs 33%; P < .001) than those in group II. The median follow-up was 21 months (interquartile range, 6-45 months). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 76%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, and was similar between groups (28 vs 22 months; P = .48). Late mortality was not related to the aorta.

CONCLUSIONS

LAR after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has been encountered more frequently in clinical practice, likely driven by the frequency of EVAR. However, most LARs, including those after previous OR, can now be salvaged with endovascular techniques with lower morbidity and mortality.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估接受开放修复(OR)或血管腔内修复术(EVAR)治疗晚期腹主动脉瘤破裂(LAR)患者的临床表现趋势、干预措施及生存率。

方法

我们回顾了2000年至2020年在单中心回顾性数据库中接受LAR治疗患者的临床资料。终点指标为30天死亡率、主要术后并发症及生存率。比较了采用EVAR治疗的LAR患者(I组)与采用OR治疗的患者(II组)的结局。

结果

在390例肾下腹主动脉破裂患者中,40例(10%)在先前主动脉修复术后发生主动脉破裂,构成LAR队列(34例男性;年龄78±8岁)。30例LAR发生在EVAR之前,10例发生在OR之前。LAR在研究后半期更为常见,2010年后有32例患者。先前OR术后的LAR继发于吻合口旁假性动脉瘤破裂。初次EVAR后,尽管17例患者(42%)进行了再次干预,仍发生了LAR。先前EVAR后发生LAR的时间比OR后短(分别为6±4年和12±4年;P = .003)。25例患者(63%;I组)采用EVAR治疗LAR,15例(37%,II组)采用OR治疗。初次OR术后的LAR患者中,10例中有8例采用血管腔内挽救治疗。在研究后半期,血管腔内治疗更为频繁。I组中,7例患者(28%)采用了开窗修复术。其余病例采用EVAR、主动脉袖带或肢体延长术挽救治疗可行。两组患者的游离破裂发生率、治疗时间、30天死亡率(8%对13%;P = .3)、并发症(32%对60%;P = .1)及转归相似。I组患者的失血量(660对3000 mL;P < .001)和透析需求(0%对33%;P < .001)均低于II组。中位随访时间为21个月(四分位间距,6 - 45个月)。总体1年、3年和5年生存率分别为76%、52%和41%,两组间相似(28对22个月;P = .48)。晚期死亡率与主动脉无关。

结论

腹主动脉瘤修复术后的LAR在临床实践中更为常见,可能是由EVAR的频率所驱动。然而,现在大多数LAR,包括先前OR术后的LAR,都可以采用血管腔内技术进行挽救,且发病率和死亡率较低。

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