Suppr超能文献

单独使用 Nellix 血管内移植物或联合烟囱技术的中期结果。

Midterm Outcomes With the Nellix Endograft Alone or With Chimneys.

作者信息

Kuntz Salomé, Deslarzes Céline, Nguyen Alexandre Than Vinh, Longchamp Alban, D'Amico Rosalinda, Longchamp Justine, Lejay Anne, Chakfé Nabil, Déglise Sébastien

机构信息

Department of Vascular Surgery and Kidney Transplantation, University of Strasbourg, France.

Gepromed, Strasbourg, France.

出版信息

EJVES Vasc Forum. 2024 Jun 22;62:8-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2024.06.001. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) appeared to be an innovative alternative to conventional endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, high rates of midterm failure of EVAS led to withdrawal of the device from the market. The study aim was to report midterm outcomes of patients treated with EVAS alone or associated with chimneys (Ch-EVAS) and the management of their complications.

METHODS

In this single centre study, all consecutive Nellix implants between 2013 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was device failure: (1) a triad of caudal migration of the Nellix stents >5 mm, separation of the endobags (>5 mm), and sac enlargement (>5 mm), with or without visible endoleak, (2) secondary aneurysm rupture, (3) surgical explant of the graft, or (4) any intervention for a type I endoleak. Overall mortality, aneurysm related mortality, and re-intervention rates were analysed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (male  = 43, female  = 7) were included. Median follow-up was 3.05 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0.52, 4.63) and follow up index was 0.51 (IQR 0.10, 0.88). Device failures occurred in 17 patients (34%). Overall and aneurysm related mortality rates during the follow up period were 30% and 13%. Fourteen (28%) patients required re-interventions. Five EVAS patients (17%) presented with complications. Type Ia endoleaks were managed by device explantation for three patients, and endovascular aneurysm repair in Nellix for two patients. Type Ib endoleaks were managed with an iliac branched device and limb extension. Nine Ch-EVAS patients (42.9%) presented with complications. Type Ia endoleaks were was managed by Nellix stent prolongation and renal extension, two multibranched thoraco-abdominal devices, and two device explantations. Type Ib endoleaks were managed by limb extension and stent complications by stent angioplasty and iliorenal bypass.

CONCLUSION

The midterm outcome of EVAS is poor. All patients who underwent EVAS implantation must be informed and should undergo frequent surveillance. Open repair and device explantation should be considered as the primary treatment.

摘要

引言

血管内动脉瘤封堵术(EVAS)似乎是传统血管内腹主动脉瘤修复术的一种创新替代方法。然而,EVAS的中期失败率较高,导致该设备退出市场。本研究的目的是报告单独接受EVAS治疗或联合烟囱技术(Ch-EVAS)治疗的患者的中期结局及其并发症的处理情况。

方法

在这项单中心研究中,纳入了2013年至2016年间所有连续植入Nellix的患者。主要终点是器械失败:(1)Nellix支架尾端迁移>5mm、内袋分离(>5mm)和瘤腔扩大(>5mm)三联征,无论有无可见内漏;(2)继发性动脉瘤破裂;(3)移植物手术取出;或(4)针对I型内漏的任何干预措施。分析了总死亡率、动脉瘤相关死亡率和再次干预率。

结果

纳入50例患者(男性43例,女性7例)。中位随访时间为3.05年(四分位间距[IQR]0.52,4.63),随访指数为0.51(IQR 0.10,0.88)。17例患者(34%)发生器械失败。随访期间的总死亡率和动脉瘤相关死亡率分别为30%和13%。14例(28%)患者需要再次干预。5例EVAS患者(17%)出现并发症。3例Ia型内漏患者通过取出器械处理,2例通过在Nellix内行血管内动脉瘤修复处理。Ib型内漏通过髂分支器械和肢体延长处理。9例Ch-EVAS患者(42.9%)出现并发症。Ia型内漏通过延长Nellix支架和肾动脉延长、2个多分支胸腹主动脉器械以及2次取出器械处理。Ib型内漏通过肢体延长处理,支架并发症通过支架血管成形术和髂肾动脉搭桥处理。

结论

EVAS的中期结局较差。所有接受EVAS植入的患者都必须被告知,并应接受频繁监测。开放修复和取出器械应被视为主要治疗方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/735f/11404053/e0a1b453bd99/gr1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验