Outcome of Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of Surgical Research Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.018
Joscha Mulorz, Laura M Costanza, Malwina Vockel, Agnesa Mazrekaj, Amir Arnautovic, Waseem Garabet, Alexander Oberhuber, Hubert Schelzig, Markus U Wagenhäuser
{"title":"Outcome of Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair.","authors":"Joscha Mulorz, Laura M Costanza, Malwina Vockel, Agnesa Mazrekaj, Amir Arnautovic, Waseem Garabet, Alexander Oberhuber, Hubert Schelzig, Markus U Wagenhäuser","doi":"10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the widespread use of branched (bEVAR) and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (fEVAR) for complex aortic pathologies, there are no reliable recommendations regarding postsurgery antiplatelet therapy. We therefore evaluated the outcome of single (SAPT) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following fEVAR and bEVAR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 63 patients from two German centers treated for complex aortic pathologies were included in this retrospective study. Patient data and computed tomography angiograms were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival and freedom from target vessel (TV)-related complications were performed. The outcomes were compared between SAPT versus DAPT and bEVAR versus fEVAR. Univariate logistic regression was applied to analyze the correlation between TV patency and various anatomical aortic parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 30 patients were treated with fEVAR and 33 with bEVAR. Of these, 19 patients received SAPT and 44 received DAPT postsurgery. Anatomical aortic characteristics and comorbidities were comparable among groups. Overall survival was 95% (±5.1) for SAPT and 88% (±8.8) for DAPT after 36 mo of follow-up. Patency was evaluated individually for each TV SAPT versus DAPT (celiac trunk 100% ± 0 versus 87% ± 9.6; superior mesenteric artery 86% ± 13.2 versus 100% ± 0; left renal artery 92% ± 8.0 versus 95% ± 3.6; right renal artery 72% ± 15.2 versus 81% ± 9.9). Freedom from endoleak was 35% (±13.7) for SAPT versus 30% (±13.8) for DAPT. There was no statistically significant difference for SAPT versus DAPT or for bEVAR versus fEVAR. Further, none of the anatomical aortic characteristics and bridging stent graft-related parameters analyzed predicted TV occlusion in logistic regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We did not observe differences in overall survival, endoleak, and TV patency rates between SAPT and DAPT treated patients following bEVAR and/or fEVAR. Patient-specific factors therefore appear to be more relevant for the long-term outcomes rather than the antiplatelet regime applied postsurgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":17030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Research","volume":"305 ","pages":"171-182"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the widespread use of branched (bEVAR) and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (fEVAR) for complex aortic pathologies, there are no reliable recommendations regarding postsurgery antiplatelet therapy. We therefore evaluated the outcome of single (SAPT) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following fEVAR and bEVAR.

Methods: A total of 63 patients from two German centers treated for complex aortic pathologies were included in this retrospective study. Patient data and computed tomography angiograms were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival and freedom from target vessel (TV)-related complications were performed. The outcomes were compared between SAPT versus DAPT and bEVAR versus fEVAR. Univariate logistic regression was applied to analyze the correlation between TV patency and various anatomical aortic parameters.

Results: In total, 30 patients were treated with fEVAR and 33 with bEVAR. Of these, 19 patients received SAPT and 44 received DAPT postsurgery. Anatomical aortic characteristics and comorbidities were comparable among groups. Overall survival was 95% (±5.1) for SAPT and 88% (±8.8) for DAPT after 36 mo of follow-up. Patency was evaluated individually for each TV SAPT versus DAPT (celiac trunk 100% ± 0 versus 87% ± 9.6; superior mesenteric artery 86% ± 13.2 versus 100% ± 0; left renal artery 92% ± 8.0 versus 95% ± 3.6; right renal artery 72% ± 15.2 versus 81% ± 9.9). Freedom from endoleak was 35% (±13.7) for SAPT versus 30% (±13.8) for DAPT. There was no statistically significant difference for SAPT versus DAPT or for bEVAR versus fEVAR. Further, none of the anatomical aortic characteristics and bridging stent graft-related parameters analyzed predicted TV occlusion in logistic regression analysis.

Conclusions: We did not observe differences in overall survival, endoleak, and TV patency rates between SAPT and DAPT treated patients following bEVAR and/or fEVAR. Patient-specific factors therefore appear to be more relevant for the long-term outcomes rather than the antiplatelet regime applied postsurgery.

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
导言:尽管分支式主动脉瓣成形术(bEVAR)和带孔主动脉瓣成形术(fEVAR)被广泛用于治疗复杂的主动脉病变,但对于术后抗血小板治疗却没有可靠的建议。因此,我们评估了 fEVAR 和 bEVAR 术后单一抗血小板疗法(SAPT)和双重抗血小板疗法(DAPT)的疗效:这项回顾性研究共纳入了来自两个德国中心的 63 名接受复杂主动脉病变治疗的患者。对患者数据和计算机断层扫描血管造影进行了分析。对总生存率和无靶血管(TV)相关并发症进行了卡普兰-梅耶(Kaplan-Meier)分析。对 SAPT 与 DAPT、bEVAR 与 fEVAR 的结果进行了比较。应用单变量逻辑回归分析了TV通畅率与各种主动脉解剖参数之间的相关性:共有 30 名患者接受了 fEVAR 治疗,33 名患者接受了 bEVAR 治疗。其中19名患者术后接受了SAPT治疗,44名患者术后接受了DAPT治疗。两组患者的主动脉解剖特征和合并症具有可比性。随访36个月后,SAPT的总生存率为95%(±5.1),DAPT为88%(±8.8)。对每组电视 SAPT 和 DAPT 的通畅率进行了单独评估(腹腔干 100% ± 0 对 87% ± 9.6;肠系膜上动脉 86% ± 13.2 对 100% ± 0;左肾动脉 92% ± 8.0 对 95% ± 3.6;右肾动脉 72% ± 15.2 对 81% ± 9.9)。SAPT与DAPT的内漏发生率分别为35%(±13.7)与30%(±13.8)。SAPT与DAPT、bEVAR与fEVAR在统计学上没有明显差异。此外,在逻辑回归分析中,所分析的解剖主动脉特征和桥接支架移植物相关参数均不能预测TV闭塞:结论:我们没有观察到接受 SAPT 和 DAPT 治疗的 bEVAR 和/或 fEVAR 患者在总生存率、内漏率和 TV 通畅率方面存在差异。因此,患者的特异性因素似乎比术后应用的抗血小板疗法更能影响长期疗效。
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
4.50%
发文量
627
审稿时长
138 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Research: Clinical and Laboratory Investigation publishes original articles concerned with clinical and laboratory investigations relevant to surgical practice and teaching. The journal emphasizes reports of clinical investigations or fundamental research bearing directly on surgical management that will be of general interest to a broad range of surgeons and surgical researchers. The articles presented need not have been the products of surgeons or of surgical laboratories. The Journal of Surgical Research also features review articles and special articles relating to educational, research, or social issues of interest to the academic surgical community.
期刊最新文献
Alemtuzumab Associated With Higher Mortality Than Basiliximab in Older Kidney Transplant Recipients. Regional Anesthesia and Surgical Volume in Children Undergoing Nuss Repair: A Multicenter Review. Baseline Anal Sphincter Elastance May Predict Long-Term Outcomes of Sacral Neuromodulation for Fecal Incontinence. Delays in Care for Children With Low Anorectal Malformations in Southwestern Uganda. Outcome of Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair.
×
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