首页> 外文期刊>Medicine. >Popliteal Artery Aneurysm Repair in the Endovascular Era: Fourteen-Years Single Center Experience
【24h】

Popliteal Artery Aneurysm Repair in the Endovascular Era: Fourteen-Years Single Center Experience

机译:血管内时代的lite动脉动脉瘤修复:十四年单中心经验。

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

To compare outcomes of popliteal artery aneurysm (PAA) repair by endovascular treatment, great saphenous vein (GSV) bypass, and prosthetic bypass. Single center retrospective analysis of patients presenting PAA from 2000 to 2013. Patients were divided into endovascular treatment (group A); GSV bypass (group B); and prosthetic graft bypass (group C). Outcomes were technical success, perioperative mortality, and morbidity. Survival, primary and secondary patency, and freedom from reintervention rate were estimated. Differences in ankle-brachial index (ABI), in-hospital length of stay (InH-Los), red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and limb loss were reported. Mean follow-up was 49 (median: 35; 1–145; SD 42) months. Sixty-seven patients were included; 25 in group A, 28 in group B, and 14 in group C. PAA was symptomatic in 23 (34%) cases. Technical success was 100%. No perioperative death occurred. Three (4.5%) perioperative complications were reported with no significant difference between groups ( P = 0.866). Five-years estimated survival was 78%. Estimated 5-years primary patency for groups A, B, and C was 71%, 81%, and 69%, respectively ( P = 0.19). Estimated 5-years secondary patency for groups A, B, and C was 88%, 85%, and 84% ( P = 0.85). Estimated 5-years freedom from reintervention for groups A, B, and C was 62%, 84%, and 70%, respectively ( P = 0.16). A significant difference between preoperative ABI versus postoperative ABI was observed ( P = 0.001). InH-LoS was significantly shorter in group A ( P < 0.001). RBC transfusions were required significantly less in group A when compared to group C ( P = 0.045). Overall limb salvage was achieved in all but 1 patient. PAA repair has good early and long-term outcomes with different treatment options. Endovascular treatment was not inferior to surgical repair with a reduced InH-LoS and RBC transfusion. It can be successfully employed even in nonelective setting. A randomized controlled trial with long-term follow-up and appropriate patient inclusion criteria is necessary to compare these 3 treatment options.
机译:为了比较通过血管内治疗,大隐静脉(GSV)旁路和假体旁路修复of动脉瘤(PAA)的结果。对2000年至2013年出现PAA的患者进行单中心回顾性分析。患者分为血管内治疗(A组); GSV旁路(B组);和假体搭桥术(C组)。结果是技术成功,围手术期死亡率和发病率。估计生存率,原发性和继发性通畅性以及无再干预率。据报道,踝臂指数(ABI),住院时间(InH-Los),红细胞(RBC)输血和肢体丢失有差异。平均随访49个月(中位数:35; 1-145; SD 42)。包括67例患者。 A组25例,B组28例,C组14例。PAA有症状(23%(34%))。技术成功率为100%。没有围手术期死亡发生。据报道三例(4.5%)围手术期并发症,两组之间无显着差异(P = 0.866)。五年估计生存率为78%。估计A,B和C组的5年主要通畅率分别为71%,81%和69%(P = 0.19)。估计A,B和C组的5年二次通畅率为88%,85%和84%(P = 0.85)。估计A,B和C组的5年免于再干预的自由分别为62%,84%和70%(P = 0.16)。术前ABI与术后ABI之间存在显着差异(P = 0.001)。 A组的InH-LoS明显短(P <0.001)。与C组相比,A组所需的RBC输血明显减少(P = 0.045)。除1例患者外,其余患者均获得了全部肢体抢救。 PAA修复具有不同的治疗方案,具有良好的早期和长期效果。血管内治疗不亚于减少InH-LoS和RBC输血的手术修复。即使在非选修环境中也可以成功地使用它。为了比较这3种治疗方案,需要进行长期随访并采用适当的患者纳入标准的随机对照试验。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号