Warren Andrew S, Murphy Blake, Saldana-Ruiz Nallely, Dansey Kirsten, Zettervall Sara L
Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences, Yakima, WA.
Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2025 Feb;111:386-392. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2024.10.013. Epub 2024 Nov 22.
Historically, open approaches have been considered the primary treatment for acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) due to the potential for bowel resection. However, the use of endovascular therapy is increasing. Given the paucity of current data, this study aims to compare outcomes between open and endovascular interventions for AMI.
Patients treated for AMI between 2011 and 2022 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) by ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. Intervention type (open vs. endovascular) was obtained from CPT codes. Demographics, comorbidities, pre-operative laboratory values, and 30-day outcomes were compared between intervention types. Multivariable analysis was utilized to adjust for differences between groups with a patient's need for bowel resection included to account for disease severity.
A total of 1,172 patients underwent revascularization for AMI (1,023 open, 149 endovascular). Among those treated with open revascularization, 577 (56%) underwent thrombectomies/embolectomy, 125 (12%) underwent thromboendarterectomy, and 321 (31%) received bypasses. Of the patients who underwent endovascular revascularizations, 101 (68%) received a stent, 23 (15%) underwent angioplasty without stenting, and 25 (17%) underwent lysis/thrombectomy. Patients who underwent endovascular revascularization had higher rates of smoking (36% open vs. 47% endovascular; P < 0.01), were more likely to have an eGFR less than 30 (6% open vs. 15% endovascular; P < 0.01), and underwent more bowel resections at the time of the initial operation (33% open vs. 48% endovascular; P < 0.01). For outcomes, patients who underwent open repair had longer median hospital stays (10 days vs. 7 days; P < 0.01). All other outcomes including 30-day mortality were similar on univariate analysis. Following adjustment for the need for bowel resection and comorbidities, 30-day-mortality (OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.28-3.02), failure to wean from ventilator (OR 1.56 95% CI: 1.05-2.34), and length of hospital stay (β 3.7 days, 95% CI: 1.8-5.6) were higher among patients treated with open surgery.
After accounting for the need for bowel resection and comorbidities, open revascularization for AMI is associated with higher peri-operative morbidity and mortality compared to endovascular intervention. Thus, the need for bowel resection should not preclude endovascular treatment for AMI.
从历史上看,由于存在肠切除的可能性,开放手术一直被视为急性肠系膜缺血(AMI)的主要治疗方法。然而,血管内治疗的应用正在增加。鉴于目前数据匮乏,本研究旨在比较AMI开放手术与血管内介入治疗的疗效。
通过ICD - 9和ICD - 10编码,在国家外科质量改进计划(NSQIP)中识别出2011年至2022年间接受AMI治疗的患者。干预类型(开放手术与血管内治疗)从CPT编码中获取。比较不同干预类型之间的人口统计学、合并症、术前实验室值和30天的疗效。采用多变量分析来调整组间差异,并纳入患者的肠切除需求以考虑疾病严重程度。
共有11