Analysis of interventional treatment options of the common femoral artery - a retrospective single center experience.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Vasa-european Journal of Vascular Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1024/0301-1526/a001125
Hendrik Scheidhauer, Sven Moebius-Winkler, Pawel Aftanski, P Christian Schulze, Daniel Kretzschmar
{"title":"Analysis of interventional treatment options of the common femoral artery - a retrospective single center experience.","authors":"Hendrik Scheidhauer, Sven Moebius-Winkler, Pawel Aftanski, P Christian Schulze, Daniel Kretzschmar","doi":"10.1024/0301-1526/a001125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> <i>Background:</i> Due to the rapid development of treatment techniques of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) treatment is nowadays predominantly interventional. An exception are lesions of the common femoral artery (CFA), which should be treated surgically according to vascular guidelines. However, recent evidence has shown that endovascular techniques, e.g. stenting, have comparable clinical outcomes while causing fewer complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the therapeutic success of endovascular therapy of CFA lesions in a single center, all - comers registry. <i>Patients and methods:</i> All patients who were treated for a CFA lesion at the Department of Internal Medicine I of the University Hospital Jena in the period from 01/2017 to 12/2020 were included. Treatment success was determined by evaluating the ankle-brachial-index (ABI) pre- and post-interventional as well as after follow-up (FU), measuring walking distance (WD) and by target revascularization rate (TLR) and primary patency rate (PPR). <i>Results:</i> The analysis included 109 patients with a mean age of 73.4 years, with 67% (73) of those being men. 72 patients received interventional treatment, whereas 33 were treated surgically and 4 conservatively. Resting ABI in the overall cohort showed an increase from 0.5 to 0.7 post intervention (p=<0.05; mean FU-time: 6.5 months). In the interventional cohort ABI increases from 0.6 to 0.8 (p=<0.05; mean FU-time: 5,8 months) at FU and from 0.3 to 0.6 (p=<0.05; mean FU-time: 8,8 month) in the surgically treated group. The WD improved in the whole collective from 116.5 meter (m) to 152.5 m (p=<0.05). The TLR showed no significant difference with 8.1% after interventional treatment and 6.1% after vascular surgery in the present analysis (p=0.72) as well as PPR with 89.8% after EVT and 90.9% after surgical approach (p=0.87). The intra-/postinterventional complication rate was 5.5% in the intervention group, compared to postoperative complication rate of 15.2% in the surgically treated group. <i>Conclusions:</i> The present analysis demonstrates that even in a real-world, all-comers collective, interventional therapy for CFA lesions was safe and equally effective as the surgically treated patient cohort. Continuing to generate registry data is important to eventually initiate a paradigm shift.</p>","PeriodicalId":23528,"journal":{"name":"Vasa-european Journal of Vascular Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"227-236"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vasa-european Journal of Vascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1024/0301-1526/a001125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Due to the rapid development of treatment techniques of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) treatment is nowadays predominantly interventional. An exception are lesions of the common femoral artery (CFA), which should be treated surgically according to vascular guidelines. However, recent evidence has shown that endovascular techniques, e.g. stenting, have comparable clinical outcomes while causing fewer complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the therapeutic success of endovascular therapy of CFA lesions in a single center, all - comers registry. Patients and methods: All patients who were treated for a CFA lesion at the Department of Internal Medicine I of the University Hospital Jena in the period from 01/2017 to 12/2020 were included. Treatment success was determined by evaluating the ankle-brachial-index (ABI) pre- and post-interventional as well as after follow-up (FU), measuring walking distance (WD) and by target revascularization rate (TLR) and primary patency rate (PPR). Results: The analysis included 109 patients with a mean age of 73.4 years, with 67% (73) of those being men. 72 patients received interventional treatment, whereas 33 were treated surgically and 4 conservatively. Resting ABI in the overall cohort showed an increase from 0.5 to 0.7 post intervention (p=<0.05; mean FU-time: 6.5 months). In the interventional cohort ABI increases from 0.6 to 0.8 (p=<0.05; mean FU-time: 5,8 months) at FU and from 0.3 to 0.6 (p=<0.05; mean FU-time: 8,8 month) in the surgically treated group. The WD improved in the whole collective from 116.5 meter (m) to 152.5 m (p=<0.05). The TLR showed no significant difference with 8.1% after interventional treatment and 6.1% after vascular surgery in the present analysis (p=0.72) as well as PPR with 89.8% after EVT and 90.9% after surgical approach (p=0.87). The intra-/postinterventional complication rate was 5.5% in the intervention group, compared to postoperative complication rate of 15.2% in the surgically treated group. Conclusions: The present analysis demonstrates that even in a real-world, all-comers collective, interventional therapy for CFA lesions was safe and equally effective as the surgically treated patient cohort. Continuing to generate registry data is important to eventually initiate a paradigm shift.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
股总动脉介入治疗方案分析--单一中心的回顾性经验。
背景:由于外周动脉疾病(PAD)治疗技术的快速发展,如今主要采用介入治疗。股总动脉(CFA)的病变是个例外,根据血管指南,应采用手术治疗。然而,最近的证据显示,血管内技术(如支架置入术)的临床疗效相当,但并发症较少。本分析的目的是在单个中心、所有患者的登记中评估血管内治疗 CFA 病变的成功率。患者和方法:纳入2017年1月1日至2020年12月12日期间在耶拿大学医院内科一区接受过CFA病变治疗的所有患者。通过评估介入治疗前后和随访(FU)后的踝肱指数(ABI)、测量步行距离(WD)以及靶血管再通率(TLR)和原发性通畅率(PPR)来确定治疗是否成功。结果分析包括 109 名患者,平均年龄为 73.4 岁,其中 67% (73 名)为男性。72名患者接受了介入治疗,33名患者接受了手术治疗,4名患者接受了保守治疗。总体队列中的静息 ABI 在干预后从 0.5 增加到 0.7(p=结论:目前的分析表明,即使在现实世界中的所有患者中,CFA病变的介入治疗也是安全的,而且与手术治疗的患者队列同样有效。继续生成登记数据对于最终启动模式转变非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
61
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Vasa is the European journal of vascular medicine. It is the official organ of the German, Swiss, and Slovenian Societies of Angiology. The journal publishes original research articles, case reports and reviews on vascular biology, epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, medical treatment and interventions for diseases of the arterial circulation, in the field of phlebology and lymphology including the microcirculation, except the cardiac circulation. Vasa combines basic science with clinical medicine making it relevant to all physicians interested in the whole vascular field.
期刊最新文献
Prospective study of the duo-hybrid venous stent for treatment of iliac vein obstruction. The routine use of Rivaroxaban as thromboprophylaxis following endovenous thermal ablation. Comparison of ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy in intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism. Comparison of the risk scoring systems in long term restenosis due to percutaneous interventions to the superficial femoral artery. The prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in hospitalized tobacco smokers with peripheral artery disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1