Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Keck Medical Center of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
J Vasc Surg. 2023 Sep;78(3):565-574.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.05.005. Epub 2023 May 13.
Fenestrated-branched endovascular repair has become a favorable treatment strategy for patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (cAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) who are high risk for open repair. Compared with degenerative aneurysms, post-dissection aneurysms can pose additional challenges for endovascular repair. Literature on physician-modified fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (PM-FBEVAR) for post-dissection aortic aneurysms is sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR for degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs.
A single-center institutional database was retrospectively reviewed for patients that underwent PM-FBEVAR between 2015 and 2021. Infected aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms were excluded. Patient characteristics, intraoperative details, and clinical outcomes were compared between degenerative and post-dissection cAAAs or TAAAs. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included technical success, major complications, endoleak, target vessel instability, and reintervention.
Of the 183 patients who underwent PM-FBEVAR in the study, 32 had aortic dissections, and 151 had degenerative aneurysms. There was one 30-day death (3.1%) in the post-dissection group and eight 30-day deaths (5.3%) in the degenerative aneurysm group (P = .99). Technical success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast usage were similar between the post-dissection and degenerative groups. Reintervention during follow-up (28% vs 35%; P = .54) and major complications were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. Endoleak was the most common reason for reintervention, with the post-dissection group having a higher rate of type IC, II, and IIIA endoleaks (31% vs 3%; P < .0001; 59% vs 26%; P = .0002; and 16% vs 4%; P = .03). During the mean follow-up of 14 months, all-cause mortality was similar between the groups (12.5% vs 21.9%; P = .23).
PM-FBEVAR is a safe treatment for post-dissection cAAAs and TAAAs with high technical success. However, endoleaks requiring reintervention were more frequent in post-dissection patients. The impact of these reinterventions on long-term durability will be assessed with continued follow-up.
对于开腹手术风险较高的复杂腹主动脉瘤(cAAA)和胸腹主动脉瘤(TAAA)患者,开窗分支血管腔内修复已成为一种有利的治疗策略。与退行性动脉瘤相比,夹层后动脉瘤给血管腔内修复带来了额外的挑战。关于用于治疗夹层后主动脉瘤的医生改良开窗分支血管腔内修复术(PM-FBEVAR)的文献很少。因此,本研究旨在比较接受 PM-FBEVAR 治疗退行性和夹层后 cAAA 或 TAAA 的患者的临床结果。
回顾性分析 2015 年至 2021 年期间在单中心机构数据库中接受 PM-FBEVAR 的患者。排除感染性动脉瘤和假性动脉瘤。比较退行性和夹层后 cAAA 或 TAAA 患者的患者特征、术中细节和临床结果。主要结局为 30 天死亡率。次要结局包括技术成功率、主要并发症、内漏、靶血管不稳定和再次介入。
在接受 PM-FBEVAR 的 183 例患者中,32 例有主动脉夹层,151 例有退行性动脉瘤。夹层组有 1 例 30 天死亡(3.1%),退行性动脉瘤组有 8 例 30 天死亡(5.3%)(P=0.99)。夹层组和退行性动脉瘤组的技术成功率、透视时间和造影剂用量相似。随访期间再次介入(28% vs 35%;P=0.54)和主要并发症在两组间无统计学差异。内漏是再次介入的最常见原因,夹层组有更高比例的 IC 型、II 型和 IIIA 型内漏(31% vs 3%;P<0.0001;59% vs 26%;P=0.0002;16% vs 4%;P=0.03)。在平均 14 个月的随访中,两组全因死亡率相似(12.5% vs 21.9%;P=0.23)。
PM-FBEVAR 是治疗夹层后 cAAA 和 TAAA 的安全治疗方法,技术成功率高。然而,夹层后患者需要再次介入治疗的内漏更为常见。随着进一步随访,这些再介入对内漏长期耐久性的影响将进行评估。