Nellix 内移植物单独使用或与烟囱一起使用的中期效果

IF 1.4 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE EJVES Vascular Forum Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2024.06.001
{"title":"Nellix 内移植物单独使用或与烟囱一起使用的中期效果","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2024.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) appeared to be an innovative alternative to conventional endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, high rates of midterm failure of EVAS led to withdrawal of the device from the market. The study aim was to report midterm outcomes of patients treated with EVAS alone or associated with chimneys (Ch-EVAS) and the management of their complications.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this single centre study, all consecutive Nellix implants between 2013 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was device failure: (1) a triad of caudal migration of the Nellix stents &gt;5 mm, separation of the endobags (&gt;5 mm), and sac enlargement (&gt;5 mm), with or without visible endoleak, (2) secondary aneurysm rupture, (3) surgical explant of the graft, or (4) any intervention for a type I endoleak. Overall mortality, aneurysm related mortality, and re-intervention rates were analysed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Fifty patients (male <em>n</em> = 43, female <em>n</em> = 7) were included. Median follow-up was 3.05 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0.52, 4.63) and follow up index was 0.51 (IQR 0.10, 0.88). Device failures occurred in 17 patients (34%). Overall and aneurysm related mortality rates during the follow up period were 30% and 13%. Fourteen (28%) patients required re-interventions. Five EVAS patients (17%) presented with complications. Type Ia endoleaks were managed by device explantation for three patients, and endovascular aneurysm repair in Nellix for two patients. Type Ib endoleaks were managed with an iliac branched device and limb extension. Nine Ch-EVAS patients (42.9%) presented with complications. Type Ia endoleaks were was managed by Nellix stent prolongation and renal extension, two multibranched thoraco-abdominal devices, and two device explantations. Type Ib endoleaks were managed by limb extension and stent complications by stent angioplasty and iliorenal bypass.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The midterm outcome of EVAS is poor. All patients who underwent EVAS implantation must be informed and should undergo frequent surveillance. Open repair and device explantation should be considered as the primary treatment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36502,"journal":{"name":"EJVES Vascular Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24000923/pdfft?md5=a79271d6e66dd286262de3c000d4bc23&pid=1-s2.0-S2666688X24000923-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Midterm Outcomes With the Nellix Endograft Alone or With Chimneys\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2024.06.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) appeared to be an innovative alternative to conventional endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, high rates of midterm failure of EVAS led to withdrawal of the device from the market. The study aim was to report midterm outcomes of patients treated with EVAS alone or associated with chimneys (Ch-EVAS) and the management of their complications.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this single centre study, all consecutive Nellix implants between 2013 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was device failure: (1) a triad of caudal migration of the Nellix stents &gt;5 mm, separation of the endobags (&gt;5 mm), and sac enlargement (&gt;5 mm), with or without visible endoleak, (2) secondary aneurysm rupture, (3) surgical explant of the graft, or (4) any intervention for a type I endoleak. Overall mortality, aneurysm related mortality, and re-intervention rates were analysed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Fifty patients (male <em>n</em> = 43, female <em>n</em> = 7) were included. Median follow-up was 3.05 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0.52, 4.63) and follow up index was 0.51 (IQR 0.10, 0.88). Device failures occurred in 17 patients (34%). Overall and aneurysm related mortality rates during the follow up period were 30% and 13%. Fourteen (28%) patients required re-interventions. Five EVAS patients (17%) presented with complications. Type Ia endoleaks were managed by device explantation for three patients, and endovascular aneurysm repair in Nellix for two patients. Type Ib endoleaks were managed with an iliac branched device and limb extension. Nine Ch-EVAS patients (42.9%) presented with complications. Type Ia endoleaks were was managed by Nellix stent prolongation and renal extension, two multibranched thoraco-abdominal devices, and two device explantations. Type Ib endoleaks were managed by limb extension and stent complications by stent angioplasty and iliorenal bypass.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The midterm outcome of EVAS is poor. All patients who underwent EVAS implantation must be informed and should undergo frequent surveillance. Open repair and device explantation should be considered as the primary treatment.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EJVES Vascular Forum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24000923/pdfft?md5=a79271d6e66dd286262de3c000d4bc23&pid=1-s2.0-S2666688X24000923-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EJVES Vascular Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24000923\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJVES Vascular Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24000923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言血管内动脉瘤封堵术(EVAS)似乎是传统血管内腹主动脉瘤修补术的创新替代方案。然而,EVAS的中期失败率较高,导致该设备退出市场。这项研究旨在报告单独使用EVAS或与烟囱(Ch-EVAS)联合使用EVAS的患者的中期疗效及其并发症的处理情况。方法在这项单中心研究中,纳入了2013年至2016年期间所有连续植入Nellix的患者。主要终点是设备故障:(1)Nellix支架尾部移位(>5 mm)、内袋分离(>5 mm)和囊肿增大(>5 mm)三联征,伴有或不伴有可见内漏;(2)继发性动脉瘤破裂;(3)手术切除移植物;或(4)对I型内漏进行任何干预。对总死亡率、动脉瘤相关死亡率和再次介入率进行了分析。中位随访时间为 3.05 年(四分位数间距 [IQR] 0.52,4.63),随访指数为 0.51(IQR 0.10,0.88)。17名患者(34%)发生了设备故障。随访期间,总死亡率和动脉瘤相关死亡率分别为 30% 和 13%。14名患者(28%)需要再次介入治疗。五名 EVAS 患者(17%)出现并发症。有 3 名患者的 Ia 型内漏通过设备拆卸得到了处理,有 2 名患者通过 Nellix 进行了血管内动脉瘤修复。Ib 型内漏通过髂支器械和肢体延伸进行了处理。九名 Ch-EVAS 患者(42.9%)出现了并发症。Ia 型内漏是通过 Nellix 支架延长和肾脏延伸、两个胸腹多分支装置和两个装置拆卸来处理的。Ib型内漏通过肢体延长术处理,支架并发症通过支架血管成形术和髂肾旁路手术处理。所有接受 EVAS 植入术的患者都必须知情,并应经常接受监测。应考虑将开放式修复和装置拆卸作为主要治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Midterm Outcomes With the Nellix Endograft Alone or With Chimneys

Introduction

Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) appeared to be an innovative alternative to conventional endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, high rates of midterm failure of EVAS led to withdrawal of the device from the market. The study aim was to report midterm outcomes of patients treated with EVAS alone or associated with chimneys (Ch-EVAS) and the management of their complications.

Methods

In this single centre study, all consecutive Nellix implants between 2013 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was device failure: (1) a triad of caudal migration of the Nellix stents >5 mm, separation of the endobags (>5 mm), and sac enlargement (>5 mm), with or without visible endoleak, (2) secondary aneurysm rupture, (3) surgical explant of the graft, or (4) any intervention for a type I endoleak. Overall mortality, aneurysm related mortality, and re-intervention rates were analysed.

Results

Fifty patients (male n = 43, female n = 7) were included. Median follow-up was 3.05 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0.52, 4.63) and follow up index was 0.51 (IQR 0.10, 0.88). Device failures occurred in 17 patients (34%). Overall and aneurysm related mortality rates during the follow up period were 30% and 13%. Fourteen (28%) patients required re-interventions. Five EVAS patients (17%) presented with complications. Type Ia endoleaks were managed by device explantation for three patients, and endovascular aneurysm repair in Nellix for two patients. Type Ib endoleaks were managed with an iliac branched device and limb extension. Nine Ch-EVAS patients (42.9%) presented with complications. Type Ia endoleaks were was managed by Nellix stent prolongation and renal extension, two multibranched thoraco-abdominal devices, and two device explantations. Type Ib endoleaks were managed by limb extension and stent complications by stent angioplasty and iliorenal bypass.

Conclusion

The midterm outcome of EVAS is poor. All patients who underwent EVAS implantation must be informed and should undergo frequent surveillance. Open repair and device explantation should be considered as the primary treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
EJVES Vascular Forum
EJVES Vascular Forum Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
145
审稿时长
102 days
期刊最新文献
Leiomyoma: Not So Smooth Editorial Board Editorial Board Immediate Carotid Artery Stenting or Deferred Treatment in Patients With Tandem Carotid Lesions Treated Endovascularly for Acute Ischaemic Stroke Critical Limb Ischaemia in Octogenarians: Treatment Outcomes Compared With Younger Patients
×
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