Comparison of Early Efficacy of the Percutaneous Presuture Technique with the Femoral Artery Incision Technique in Endovascular Aortic Repair under Local Anesthesia for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of interventional cardiology Pub Date : 2022-08-22 DOI:10.1155/2022/6550759
Qingsong Wu, Debin Jiang, Xiaochai Lv, Jiaxin Zhang, Rongda Huang, Zhihuang Qiu, Liangwan Chen
{"title":"Comparison of Early Efficacy of the Percutaneous Presuture Technique with the Femoral Artery Incision Technique in Endovascular Aortic Repair under Local Anesthesia for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection","authors":"Qingsong Wu,&nbsp;Debin Jiang,&nbsp;Xiaochai Lv,&nbsp;Jiaxin Zhang,&nbsp;Rongda Huang,&nbsp;Zhihuang Qiu,&nbsp;Liangwan Chen","doi":"10.1155/2022/6550759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Objective</i>. To compare the efficacy of the percutaneous presuture technique (PPST) and the femoral artery incision technique (FAIT) under local anesthesia in the treatment of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD). <i>Method</i>. Two hundred and ninety-five patients diagnosed with uTBAD who underwent EVAR under local anesthesia from June 2017 to December 2021 were consecutively and randomly selected for retrospective analysis. The PPST was performed in 178 cases and the FAIT was performed in 117 cases. The clinical characteristics and surgical and postoperative data from the two groups were analyzed. <i>Results</i>. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). The operative time of the PPST group was significantly shorter than that of the FAIT group (46 (33, 58) versus 72 (67.5, 78.0) minutes, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), as was the operative approach procedure time (6 (4.5, 9.0) versus 38 (36.5, 43.5) minutes, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and length of postoperative hospital stay (5.19 ± 2.26 versus 8.33 ± 3.76 days, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). There were fewer postoperative approach-related procedural complications in the PPST group than in the FAIT group (2 versus 12, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001); similarly, the average frequency of postoperative wound disinfection was significantly lower in the PPST group (1.08 ± 0.39 versus 3.31 ± 0.91 times, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Obesity was identified as an independent risk factor for postoperative approach-related procedural complications (OR, 22.26; 95% CI, 4.74–104.49; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). <i>Conclusions</i>. The PPST has comparable safety and efficacy to the FAIT in EVAR under local anesthesia. It can shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce operation time, lower the risk of wound-related complications, reduce the frequency of postoperative wound disinfection, and hasten postoperative recovery. It can therefore be used as a first-line surgical technique in EVAR of uTBAD under local anesthesia, especially in obese patients.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional cardiology","volume":"2022 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9424020/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of interventional cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/6550759","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective. To compare the efficacy of the percutaneous presuture technique (PPST) and the femoral artery incision technique (FAIT) under local anesthesia in the treatment of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD). Method. Two hundred and ninety-five patients diagnosed with uTBAD who underwent EVAR under local anesthesia from June 2017 to December 2021 were consecutively and randomly selected for retrospective analysis. The PPST was performed in 178 cases and the FAIT was performed in 117 cases. The clinical characteristics and surgical and postoperative data from the two groups were analyzed. Results. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operative time of the PPST group was significantly shorter than that of the FAIT group (46 (33, 58) versus 72 (67.5, 78.0) minutes, p < 0.001), as was the operative approach procedure time (6 (4.5, 9.0) versus 38 (36.5, 43.5) minutes, p < 0.001), and length of postoperative hospital stay (5.19 ± 2.26 versus 8.33 ± 3.76 days, p < 0.001). There were fewer postoperative approach-related procedural complications in the PPST group than in the FAIT group (2 versus 12, p < 0.001); similarly, the average frequency of postoperative wound disinfection was significantly lower in the PPST group (1.08 ± 0.39 versus 3.31 ± 0.91 times, p < 0.05). Obesity was identified as an independent risk factor for postoperative approach-related procedural complications (OR, 22.26; 95% CI, 4.74–104.49; p < 0.001). Conclusions. The PPST has comparable safety and efficacy to the FAIT in EVAR under local anesthesia. It can shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce operation time, lower the risk of wound-related complications, reduce the frequency of postoperative wound disinfection, and hasten postoperative recovery. It can therefore be used as a first-line surgical technique in EVAR of uTBAD under local anesthesia, especially in obese patients.

Abstract Image

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
经皮预缝合技术与股动脉切开技术在局麻下血管内修复无并发症B型主动脉夹层的早期疗效比较。
目的:比较局麻下经皮预缝合技术(PPST)与股动脉切开技术(FAIT)在无并发症B型主动脉夹层(uTBAD)患者血管内主动脉修复(EVAR)中的应用效果。方法:选取2017年6月至2021年12月确诊为uTBAD的295例局部麻醉下行EVAR的患者,连续随机抽取进行回顾性分析。其中PPST 178例,FAIT 117例。分析两组患者的临床特点及手术及术后资料。结果:两组患者临床特征比较,差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。PPST组的手术时间明显短于FAIT组(46 (33,58)vs 72 (67.5, 78.0) min, p < 0.001),手术入路时间(6 (4.5,9.0)vs 38 (36.5, 43.5) min, p < 0.001),术后住院时间(5.19±2.26 vs 8.33±3.76 d, p < 0.001)。与FAIT组相比,PPST组术后入路相关的手术并发症较少(2例对12例,p < 0.001);同样,PPST组术后伤口消毒平均次数(1.08±0.39次)明显低于对照组(3.31±0.91次),p < 0.05。肥胖被认为是术后入路相关手术并发症的独立危险因素(OR, 22.26;95% ci, 4.74-104.49;P < 0.001)。结论:PPST与FAIT在局麻下EVAR的安全性和有效性相当。缩短住院时间,减少手术时间,降低创面相关并发症的发生风险,减少术后创面消毒次数,加快术后恢复。因此,它可以作为局部麻醉下uTBAD EVAR的一线手术技术,特别是肥胖患者。
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
Journal of interventional cardiology
Journal of interventional cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Interventional Cardiology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for cardiologists determined to stay current in the diagnosis, investigation, and management of patients with cardiovascular disease and its associated complications. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on new procedures and techniques in all major subject areas in the field, including: Acute coronary syndrome Coronary disease Congenital heart diseases Myocardial infarction Peripheral arterial disease Valvular heart disease Cardiac hemodynamics and physiology Haemostasis and thrombosis
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to “The “L-Sandwich” Strategy for True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial” Complete Revascularization Techniques for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Angiography- and Coronary Physiology-Guided PCI Predictors for Sedation Failure in Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair Procedures Single Center Experience With Impella 5.5 for Escalation and De-Escalation of Cardiogenic Shock Patients Epidemiological Trends, Etiology, and Burden Study of Heart Failure in China, 1990–2019
×
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