首页> 外文期刊>Journal of endovascular therapy: an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists >Directional Atherectomy With Antirestenotic Therapy vs Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Alone for Common Femoral Artery Atherosclerotic Disease
【24h】

Directional Atherectomy With Antirestenotic Therapy vs Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Alone for Common Femoral Artery Atherosclerotic Disease

机译:具有抗激蛋白疗法的定向形态切除术对普通股动脉粥样硬化疾病的单独药物涂层气球血管成形术

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose: To report an experience using directional atherectomy (DA) with antirestenotic therapy (DAART) in the form of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty vs DCB angioplasty alone in common femoral artery (CFA) occlusive lesions. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 47 consecutive patients (mean age 71 years; 26 men) treated between October 2011 and July 2016 using either DCB angioplasty alone (n=26) or DAART (n=21) for CFA lesions. The majority of patients had lifestyle-limiting claudication (14 DCB and 15 DAART). Mean lesion length (39 +/- 14 mm DCB and 34 +/- 16 mm DAART) and vessel calcification (17/26 DCB and 11/21 DAART) were comparable between the groups. There were 4 chronic total occlusions, all in the DAART group. The main outcome measure was primary patency. Key secondary outcomes were technical success, secondary patency, and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: Technical success rates were 89% following DCB angioplasty and 95% for DAART (p=0.41). The 88% 12-month primary patency and 89% freedom from TLR for DAART were higher than the 68% and 75% estimates following DCB angioplasty alone, but neither difference was statistically significant. However, the secondary patency estimate at 12 months was significantly higher in the DAART group (100% vs 81% for DCB, p=0.03). Bailout stenting (1 DCB vs 1 DAART), vessel perforation (1 DCB vs 0 DAART), access site complications (4 DCB vs 3 DAART), and distal embolization (0 DCB vs 1 DAART) were comparable, whereas DCB angioplasty had more non-flow-limiting dissections (8 vs 1 for DAART, p=0.02). Conclusion: Preparation of the atherosclerotic CFA with directional atherectomy was not associated with statistically significantly higher primary patency or freedom from TLR compared to DCB angioplasty alone at 12 months. Nonetheless, both modalities had promising outcomes in a primarily surgically treated vascular territory.
机译:目的:报告在股总动脉(CFA)闭塞性病变中,以药物涂层球囊(DCB)血管成形术(DCB)和单纯DCB血管成形术(DCB)的形式使用定向动脉切除术(DA)和抗应激治疗(DAART)的经验。方法:对2011年10月至2016年7月期间47名连续患者(平均年龄71岁;26名男性)进行回顾性分析,分别采用单纯DCB血管成形术(n=26)或DAART(n=21)治疗CFA病变。大多数患者有生活方式限制性跛行(14例DCB和15例DAART)。两组之间的平均病变长度(39+/-14 mm DCB和34+/-16 mm DAART)和血管钙化(17/26 DCB和11/21 DAART)具有可比性。DAART组有4例慢性完全闭塞。主要观察指标为一期通畅率。主要的次要结果是技术成功、二次通畅和免于临床驱动的靶病变血运重建(TLR)。结果:DCB血管成形术的技术成功率为89%,DAART的技术成功率为95%(p=0.41)。DAART的88%的12个月原发性通畅率和89%的TLR自由度高于单纯DCB血管成形术后68%和75%的估计值,但两种差异均无统计学意义。然而,DAART组在12个月时的二次通畅率估计值显著高于DCB组(100%比81%,p=0.03)。紧急支架置入术(1 DCB vs 1 DAART)、血管穿孔(1 DCB vs 0 DAART)、进入部位并发症(4 DCB vs 3 DAART)和远端栓塞(0 DCB vs 1 DAART)具有可比性,而DCB血管成形术有更多非流量限制性解剖(8 vs 1 DAART,p=0.02)。结论:与单纯DCB血管成形术相比,在12个月时,采用定向动脉切除术制备动脉粥样硬化性CFA与原发性通畅率或TLR自由度在统计学上无显著性差异。尽管如此,这两种方法在主要通过手术治疗的血管区域都有很好的效果。

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