胸腹主动脉瘤血管内修复与开放手术修复后的靶动脉预后--一项单中心比较研究。

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Annals of surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000006594
Ying Huang, Jill Colglazier, Bernardo C Mendes, Alberto Pochettino, Manju Kalra, Kevin L Greason, Emanuel R Tenorio, William S Harmsen, Gustavo S Oderich
{"title":"胸腹主动脉瘤血管内修复与开放手术修复后的靶动脉预后--一项单中心比较研究。","authors":"Ying Huang, Jill Colglazier, Bernardo C Mendes, Alberto Pochettino, Manju Kalra, Kevin L Greason, Emanuel R Tenorio, William S Harmsen, Gustavo S Oderich","doi":"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare target artery (TA) outcomes after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Few studies have compared TA outcomes after endovascular incorporation and open reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Among consecutive patients who underwent elective OSR or FB-EVAR of TAAAs (2008-2020), we reviewed those who had postoperative imaging studies evaluating TA. Data of FB-EVAR patients were obtained from a prospectively maintained institutional database. TAs included celiac, superior mesenteric, right and left renal arteries treated during TAAA repairs. Primary endpoint was TA patency (primary and secondary).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 131 patients (487 TAs) treated by OSR and 350 (1,300 TAs) by FB-EVAR. In the OSR group, 440 TAs (90.3%) were reconstructed by bypasses, and 47 (9.7%) by reimplantation. In the FB-EVAR group, 841 TAs (64.7%) were incorporated by fenestrations, and 459 (35.3%) by DBs. Thirty-day TA primary patency rates were not significantly different between FB-EVAR and OSR (99.4%% vs. 99.0%, P=0.36), but secondary patency rate was higher after FB-EVAR (99.8% vs. 99.0%, P=0.02). Three-year primary patency rates were 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.7-97.2%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 92.2-97.2%), respectively; secondary patency rates were 98.5% (95% CI, 97.7-99.2%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 95.7-99.2%), respectively. There were no significant differences in late primary patency and secondary patency between groups (each P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Target artery primary and secondary patency rates following elective OSR or FB-EVAR were high. Endovascular repair was not associated with loss of primary patency and late secondary patency.</p>","PeriodicalId":8017,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Target Artery Outcomes Following Endovascular versus Open Surgical Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms - A Single Center Comparative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Ying Huang, Jill Colglazier, Bernardo C Mendes, Alberto Pochettino, Manju Kalra, Kevin L Greason, Emanuel R Tenorio, William S Harmsen, Gustavo S Oderich\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare target artery (TA) outcomes after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Few studies have compared TA outcomes after endovascular incorporation and open reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Among consecutive patients who underwent elective OSR or FB-EVAR of TAAAs (2008-2020), we reviewed those who had postoperative imaging studies evaluating TA. Data of FB-EVAR patients were obtained from a prospectively maintained institutional database. TAs included celiac, superior mesenteric, right and left renal arteries treated during TAAA repairs. Primary endpoint was TA patency (primary and secondary).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 131 patients (487 TAs) treated by OSR and 350 (1,300 TAs) by FB-EVAR. In the OSR group, 440 TAs (90.3%) were reconstructed by bypasses, and 47 (9.7%) by reimplantation. In the FB-EVAR group, 841 TAs (64.7%) were incorporated by fenestrations, and 459 (35.3%) by DBs. Thirty-day TA primary patency rates were not significantly different between FB-EVAR and OSR (99.4%% vs. 99.0%, P=0.36), but secondary patency rate was higher after FB-EVAR (99.8% vs. 99.0%, P=0.02). Three-year primary patency rates were 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.7-97.2%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 92.2-97.2%), respectively; secondary patency rates were 98.5% (95% CI, 97.7-99.2%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 95.7-99.2%), respectively. There were no significant differences in late primary patency and secondary patency between groups (each P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Target artery primary and secondary patency rates following elective OSR or FB-EVAR were high. Endovascular repair was not associated with loss of primary patency and late secondary patency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006594\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006594","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的背景:比较胸腹主动脉瘤(TAAAs)的开窗或分支主动脉内膜修复术(FB-EVAR)与开放手术修复术(OSR)后靶动脉(TA)的预后:背景:很少有研究对血管内重建和开放重建后的主动脉瘤治疗效果进行比较:方法:在接受选择性 OSR 或 FB-EVAR 的 TAAAs 连续患者中(2008-2020 年),我们回顾了术后影像学检查评估 TA 的患者。FB-EVAR患者的数据来自一个前瞻性维护的机构数据库。TAA包括在TAAA修复期间接受治疗的腹腔动脉、肠系膜上动脉、右肾动脉和左肾动脉。主要终点是TA的通畅性(一级和二级):结果:有131名患者(487个TA)接受了OSR治疗,350名患者(1,300个TA)接受了FB-EVAR治疗。在OSR组中,440个TA(90.3%)通过搭桥重建,47个(9.7%)通过再植重建。在FB-EVAR组中,841个TA(64.7%)通过瓣膜重建,459个(35.3%)通过DB重建。FB-EVAR和OSR的30天TA初次通畅率无明显差异(99.4% vs. 99.0%,P=0.36),但FB-EVAR后的二次通畅率更高(99.8% vs. 99.0%,P=0.02)。三年一次通畅率分别为 95.9%(95% 置信区间 [CI],94.7-97.2%)和 94.7%(95% CI,92.2-97.2%);二次通畅率分别为 98.5%(95% CI,97.7-99.2%)和 94.7%(95% CI,95.7-99.2%)。各组间的晚期一次通畅率和二次通畅率无明显差异(各组PC结论:择期OSR或FB-EVAR术后靶动脉一次和二次通畅率很高。血管内修复与一次通畅率和晚期二次通畅率的丧失无关。
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
Target Artery Outcomes Following Endovascular versus Open Surgical Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms - A Single Center Comparative Study.

Objective: To compare target artery (TA) outcomes after fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).

Background: Few studies have compared TA outcomes after endovascular incorporation and open reconstruction.

Methods: Among consecutive patients who underwent elective OSR or FB-EVAR of TAAAs (2008-2020), we reviewed those who had postoperative imaging studies evaluating TA. Data of FB-EVAR patients were obtained from a prospectively maintained institutional database. TAs included celiac, superior mesenteric, right and left renal arteries treated during TAAA repairs. Primary endpoint was TA patency (primary and secondary).

Results: There were 131 patients (487 TAs) treated by OSR and 350 (1,300 TAs) by FB-EVAR. In the OSR group, 440 TAs (90.3%) were reconstructed by bypasses, and 47 (9.7%) by reimplantation. In the FB-EVAR group, 841 TAs (64.7%) were incorporated by fenestrations, and 459 (35.3%) by DBs. Thirty-day TA primary patency rates were not significantly different between FB-EVAR and OSR (99.4%% vs. 99.0%, P=0.36), but secondary patency rate was higher after FB-EVAR (99.8% vs. 99.0%, P=0.02). Three-year primary patency rates were 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.7-97.2%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 92.2-97.2%), respectively; secondary patency rates were 98.5% (95% CI, 97.7-99.2%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 95.7-99.2%), respectively. There were no significant differences in late primary patency and secondary patency between groups (each P<0.05).

Conclusion: Target artery primary and secondary patency rates following elective OSR or FB-EVAR were high. Endovascular repair was not associated with loss of primary patency and late secondary patency.

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
Annals of surgery
Annals of surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
4.40%
发文量
687
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgery is a renowned surgery journal, recognized globally for its extensive scholarly references. It serves as a valuable resource for the international medical community by disseminating knowledge regarding important developments in surgical science and practice. Surgeons regularly turn to the Annals of Surgery to stay updated on innovative practices and techniques. The journal also offers special editorial features such as "Advances in Surgical Technique," offering timely coverage of ongoing clinical issues. Additionally, the journal publishes monthly review articles that address the latest concerns in surgical practice.
期刊最新文献
The Association Between Pediatric Readiness and Mortality for Injured Children Treated at US Trauma Centers. The Role of Adjuvant Therapy in Duodenal Adenocarcinoma and Intestinal Subtype Ampullary Carcinoma After Curative Resection. Association of Prophylactic Antibiotics With Early Infectious Complications in Children With Cancer Undergoing Central Venous Access Device Placement. Cure Probabilities After Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of 2554 Patients. Pancreatic Cancer: An Exocrine Tumor With Endocrine Characteristics.
×
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