Suppr超能文献

小剂量与标准剂量放疗在外周血管腔内介入治疗中的应用及结果(KAR血管腔内研究)

Application and Outcomes of Minimal-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Radiation in Peripheral Endovascular Intervention (KAR Endovascular Study).

作者信息

Kar Subrata, Espinoza Clifton

机构信息

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, El Paso, TX 79905, USA.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2025 Jul 25;12(8):284. doi: 10.3390/jcdd12080284.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Peripheral endovascular intervention (PEVI) is routinely performed using standard-dose radiation (SDR), which is associated with elevated levels of radiation. No study has evaluated the outcomes of minimal-dose radiation (MDR) in PEVI.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study of 184 patients (65 ± 12 years) at an academic medical center from January 2019 to March 2020 (mean follow-up of 3.9 ± 3.6 months) and compared the outcomes of MDR (n = 24, 13.0%) and SDR (n = 160, 87.0%) in PEVI. Primary endpoints included air kerma, dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time, and contrast use. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, acute myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, stroke, repeat revascularization, vessel dissection/perforation, major adverse limb event, access site complications, and composite of complications.

RESULTS

For MDR (68 ± 10 years, mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 5.2 months), the primary endpoints were significantly less than SDR (65 ± 12 years, mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 3.2 months; < 0.001). Regarding the secondary endpoints, one vessel dissection occurred using MDR, while 36 total complications occurred with SDR ( = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

PEVI using MDR was safe and efficacious. MDR showed a significant decrement in radiation parameters and fluoroscopy time. Therefore, MDR can serve as an effective alternative for PEVI in acute or critical limb ischemia.

摘要

背景

外周血管腔内介入治疗(PEVI)通常采用标准剂量辐射(SDR),这与辐射水平升高有关。尚无研究评估最小剂量辐射(MDR)在PEVI中的疗效。

方法

我们于2019年1月至2020年3月在一家学术医疗中心对184例患者(65±12岁)进行了一项前瞻性观察研究(平均随访3.9±3.6个月),比较了MDR(n = 24,13.0%)和SDR(n = 160,87.0%)在PEVI中的疗效。主要终点包括空气比释动能、剂量面积乘积(DAP)、透视时间和造影剂使用量。次要终点包括全因死亡率、心脏死亡率、急性心肌梗死、急性肾损伤、中风、再次血管重建、血管夹层/穿孔、主要肢体不良事件、穿刺部位并发症以及并发症综合情况。

结果

对于MDR组(68±10岁,平均随访4.3±5.2个月),主要终点显著低于SDR组(65±12岁,平均随访3.8±3.2个月;P<0.001)。关于次要终点,MDR组发生1例血管夹层,而SDR组共发生36例并发症(P = 0.037)。

结论

采用MDR的PEVI安全有效。MDR在辐射参数和透视时间方面有显著降低。因此,MDR可作为急性或严重肢体缺血患者PEVI的有效替代方案。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3366/12386396/e4c409c22538/jcdd-12-00284-g001.jpg

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