...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of endovascular therapy: an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists >A 15-Year Single-Center Experience of Endovascular Repair for Elective and Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
【24h】

A 15-Year Single-Center Experience of Endovascular Repair for Elective and Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

机译:选择性和破裂性腹主动脉瘤的腔内修复15年单中心经验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Purpose: To evaluate the differences in technical outcomes and secondary interventions between elective endovascular aneurysm repair (el-EVAR) procedures and those for ruptured aneurysms (r-EVAR). Methods: Of the 906 patients treated with primary EVAR from September 1998 until July 2012, 43 cases were excluded owing to the use of first-generation stent-grafts. Among the remaining 863 patients, 773 (89.6%) patients (mean age 72 years; 697 men) with asymptomatic or symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) were assigned to the el-EVAR group; 90 (10.4%) patients (mean age 73 years; 73 men) were assigned to the r-EVAR group based on blood outside the aortic wall on preoperative imaging. The primary study outcome was technical success; secondary endpoints, including freedom from secondary interventions and late survival, were examined with Kaplan-Meier analyses. Results: At baseline, r-EVAR patients had larger aneurysms on average (p<0.001) compared to el-EVAR patients. Technical success was comparable (p=0.052), but there were more type Ia endoleaks at completion angiography in the r-EVAR group (p=0.038). As anticipated, more patients died in the first month in the r-EVAR group (18.9% vs 2.2% el-EVAR, p<0.001). At 5 years, there was an overall survival of 65.1% for the el-EVAR patients vs 48.1% in the r-EVAR group (p<0.001). The freedom from AAA-related mortality was 95.7% for el-EVAR and 71.0% for r-EVAR (p<0.001). Five-year freedom from type I/III endoleaks was significantly lower in the r-EVAR group (78.7% vs 90.0%, p=0.003). Five-year freedom from secondary intervention estimates were not significantly different (el-EVAR 84.2% vs r-EVAR 78.2%, p=0.064). Conclusion: Within our cohort of primary EVAR patients, r-EVAR cases showed comparable stent-graft-related technical outcome. Although there was a higher incidence of type Ia endoleaks on completion angiography in the r-EVAR group, the overall secondary intervention rate was comparable to el-EVAR.
机译:目的:评估选择性血管内动脉瘤修复(el-EVAR)程序与破裂性动脉瘤(r-EVAR)程序在技术效果和二次干预方面的差异。方法:在1998年9月至2012年7月的906例接受原发性EVAR治疗的患者中,有43例因使用第一代支架植入物而被排除在外。在其余的863例患者中,有773例(平均年龄72岁; 697例男性)无症状或有症状的腹主动脉瘤(AAAs)患者被分配到了EVAR组;根据术前影像学上主动脉壁外的血液,将90名患者(10.4%)(平均年龄73岁; 73名男性)分配到r-EVAR组。主要研究结果是技术成功。 Kaplan-Meier分析检查了次要终点,包括避免二次干预和晚期生存。结果:与eEVAR患者相比,r-EVAR患者在基线时平均有较大的动脉瘤(p <0.001)。技术成功率相当(p = 0.052),但r-EVAR组在完成血管造影时Ia型内漏更多(p = 0.038)。正如预期的那样,r-EVAR组在第一个月死亡的患者更多(18.9%vs 2.2%el-EVAR,p <0.001)。 e-EVAR患者在5年时的总生存率为65.1%,而r-EVAR组为48.1%(p <0.001)。 el-EVAR和AAA-r-EVAR的AAA相关死亡率分别为95.7%和71.0%(p <0.001)。 r-EVAR组的五年免于I / III型内漏的发生率显着降低(78.7%对90.0%,p = 0.003)。从二级干预评估得出的五年自由度没有显着差异(el-EVAR 84.2%vs r-EVAR 78.2%,p = 0.064)。结论:在我们的原发性EVAR患者队列中,r-EVAR病例显示出可比的支架移植相关技术结局。尽管r-EVAR组在完成血管造影时Ia型内漏的发生率较高,但总体二级干预率与el-EVAR相当。

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