美国 B 型主动脉夹层胸腔内血管修复术的使用趋势、时机和结果

Troy Coaston BS , Oh Jin Kwon MD , Amulya Vadlakonda BS , Jeffrey Balian , Nam Yong Cho BS , Saad Mallick MD , Christian de Virgilio MD , Peyman Benharash MD
{"title":"美国 B 型主动脉夹层胸腔内血管修复术的使用趋势、时机和结果","authors":"Troy Coaston BS ,&nbsp;Oh Jin Kwon MD ,&nbsp;Amulya Vadlakonda BS ,&nbsp;Jeffrey Balian ,&nbsp;Nam Yong Cho BS ,&nbsp;Saad Mallick MD ,&nbsp;Christian de Virgilio MD ,&nbsp;Peyman Benharash MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.07.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Aortic dissection is the most common acute aortic syndrome in the United States. Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) can be managed medically, through open surgical repair, or with thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The present study sought to assess contemporary trends in the use and timing of TEVAR.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Adult nonelective TBAD admissions were identified in the 2010 to 2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were categorized as medical management (Medical Management), TEVAR at initial hospitalization (Early), or TEVAR during readmission (Delayed). Multivariable models were developed to assess associations with clinical outcomes and resource utilization.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 85,753 patients, 8.7% underwent TEVAR at index hospitalization (Early). From 2010 to 2020, the proportion undergoing TEVAR decreased significantly (from 11.3% to 9.6%; nptrend &lt; .001), while the proportion of TEVAR at a subsequent hospitalization increased (from 13.0% to 21.6%; nptrend &lt; .001). Compared to Medical Management, the Early group was younger (median. 63 [interquartile range (IQR), 52-74] years vs 69 [IQR, 57-81] years), and more frequently privately insured (27.7% vs 17.5%; <em>P</em> &lt; .001). Following adjustment, the Early group had a reduced odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.66) and increased hospitalization costs (β = +$50,000; 95% CI, $48,000-$53,000). Among 4267 TEVAR patients with available procedure timing data, 15.7% were categorized as Delayed. The Early and Delayed groups did not differ in terms of demographics. The Delayed group had a decreased likelihood of major adverse events (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64); however, this did not affect 90-day cumulative hospitalization costs (β = +$2700; 95% CI, -$5000-$11,000, ref: Early).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study suggests changes to TBAD management in both treatment modality and TEVAR timing. Focused analysis on the timing and long-term costs of TEVAR are needed to optimize care delivery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74032,"journal":{"name":"JTCVS open","volume":"21 ","pages":"Pages 35-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trends in utilization, timing, and outcomes of thoracic endovascular repair for type B aortic dissection in the United States\",\"authors\":\"Troy Coaston BS ,&nbsp;Oh Jin Kwon MD ,&nbsp;Amulya Vadlakonda BS ,&nbsp;Jeffrey Balian ,&nbsp;Nam Yong Cho BS ,&nbsp;Saad Mallick MD ,&nbsp;Christian de Virgilio MD ,&nbsp;Peyman Benharash MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.07.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Aortic dissection is the most common acute aortic syndrome in the United States. Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) can be managed medically, through open surgical repair, or with thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The present study sought to assess contemporary trends in the use and timing of TEVAR.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Adult nonelective TBAD admissions were identified in the 2010 to 2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were categorized as medical management (Medical Management), TEVAR at initial hospitalization (Early), or TEVAR during readmission (Delayed). Multivariable models were developed to assess associations with clinical outcomes and resource utilization.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 85,753 patients, 8.7% underwent TEVAR at index hospitalization (Early). From 2010 to 2020, the proportion undergoing TEVAR decreased significantly (from 11.3% to 9.6%; nptrend &lt; .001), while the proportion of TEVAR at a subsequent hospitalization increased (from 13.0% to 21.6%; nptrend &lt; .001). Compared to Medical Management, the Early group was younger (median. 63 [interquartile range (IQR), 52-74] years vs 69 [IQR, 57-81] years), and more frequently privately insured (27.7% vs 17.5%; <em>P</em> &lt; .001). Following adjustment, the Early group had a reduced odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.66) and increased hospitalization costs (β = +$50,000; 95% CI, $48,000-$53,000). Among 4267 TEVAR patients with available procedure timing data, 15.7% were categorized as Delayed. The Early and Delayed groups did not differ in terms of demographics. The Delayed group had a decreased likelihood of major adverse events (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64); however, this did not affect 90-day cumulative hospitalization costs (β = +$2700; 95% CI, -$5000-$11,000, ref: Early).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study suggests changes to TBAD management in both treatment modality and TEVAR timing. Focused analysis on the timing and long-term costs of TEVAR are needed to optimize care delivery.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JTCVS open\",\"volume\":\"21 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 35-44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JTCVS open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624002006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTCVS open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624002006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景主动脉夹层是美国最常见的急性主动脉综合征。B型主动脉夹层(TBAD)可通过药物、开放手术修复或胸腔内血管修复(TEVAR)进行治疗。本研究旨在评估 TEVAR 的使用和时机的当代趋势。方法从 2010 年至 2020 年全国再入院数据库中确定了非选择性 TBAD 成人入院患者。患者被分为医疗管理(Medical Management)、首次住院时进行 TEVAR(Early)或再入院时进行 TEVAR(Delayed)。结果 在85753名患者中,8.7%的患者在首次住院时(早期)接受了TEVAR。从 2010 年到 2020 年,接受 TEVAR 的比例显著下降(从 11.3% 降至 9.6%;nptrend <;.001),而在随后的住院中接受 TEVAR 的比例则有所上升(从 13.0% 升至 21.6%;nptrend <;.001)。与医疗管理相比,早期组患者更年轻(中位数:63[四分位间距(IQ):.001])。63[四分位数间距 (IQR),52-74]岁 vs 69 [四分位数间距 (IQR, 57-81]岁]),并且更多私人投保(27.7% vs 17.5%;P < .001)。经调整后,早期组的死亡率降低(调整后的几率比 [aOR],0.56;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.48-0.66),住院费用增加(β = +50,000美元;95% CI,48,000-53,000美元)。在4267例有手术时间数据的TEVAR患者中,15.7%被归为延迟组。早期组和延迟组在人口统计学方面没有差异。延迟组发生重大不良事件的可能性降低(aOR,0.50;95% CI,0.39-0.64);但这并不影响90天的累计住院费用(β = +2700美元;95% CI,-5000-11000美元,参考:早期)。需要对 TEVAR 的时机和长期成本进行重点分析,以优化医疗服务。
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
Trends in utilization, timing, and outcomes of thoracic endovascular repair for type B aortic dissection in the United States

Background

Aortic dissection is the most common acute aortic syndrome in the United States. Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) can be managed medically, through open surgical repair, or with thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The present study sought to assess contemporary trends in the use and timing of TEVAR.

Methods

Adult nonelective TBAD admissions were identified in the 2010 to 2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were categorized as medical management (Medical Management), TEVAR at initial hospitalization (Early), or TEVAR during readmission (Delayed). Multivariable models were developed to assess associations with clinical outcomes and resource utilization.

Results

Of 85,753 patients, 8.7% underwent TEVAR at index hospitalization (Early). From 2010 to 2020, the proportion undergoing TEVAR decreased significantly (from 11.3% to 9.6%; nptrend < .001), while the proportion of TEVAR at a subsequent hospitalization increased (from 13.0% to 21.6%; nptrend < .001). Compared to Medical Management, the Early group was younger (median. 63 [interquartile range (IQR), 52-74] years vs 69 [IQR, 57-81] years), and more frequently privately insured (27.7% vs 17.5%; P < .001). Following adjustment, the Early group had a reduced odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.66) and increased hospitalization costs (β = +$50,000; 95% CI, $48,000-$53,000). Among 4267 TEVAR patients with available procedure timing data, 15.7% were categorized as Delayed. The Early and Delayed groups did not differ in terms of demographics. The Delayed group had a decreased likelihood of major adverse events (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64); however, this did not affect 90-day cumulative hospitalization costs (β = +$2700; 95% CI, -$5000-$11,000, ref: Early).

Conclusions

This study suggests changes to TBAD management in both treatment modality and TEVAR timing. Focused analysis on the timing and long-term costs of TEVAR are needed to optimize care delivery.
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Repair of acute type A aortic dissection: The simplest solution is not always the best Are there etiology-specific risk factors for adverse outcomes in patients on Impella 5.5 support? Type B aortic dissection in Marfan patients after the David procedure: Insights from patient-specific simulation Reoperation after aortic root replacement and its impact on long-term survival Should we wait until the morning?
×
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