首页> 外文期刊>Journal of endovascular therapy: an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists >Comparison of Cerebral Embolic Events Between Right and Left Upper Extremity Access During Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair
【24h】

Comparison of Cerebral Embolic Events Between Right and Left Upper Extremity Access During Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair

机译:左侧上肢近端接入脑栓塞事件的比较/分支血管内主动脉瘤修复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose: To evaluate the incidence and outcomes of cerebral embolic events when using right (RUE) vs left upper extremity (LUE) access for fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (f/bEVAR). Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 290 consecutive patients enrolled in a physician-sponsored Investigational Device Exemption study to evaluate f/bEVAR between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 270 patients (93%) had an upper extremity access with 12-F sheaths, including 205 patients (mean age 75 +/- 8 years; 147 men) with LUE and 65 patients (mean age 73 +/- 8 years; 42 men) with RUE access. Outcome measures were technical success, procedural metrics, major adverse events (MAEs), any stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), and mortality. Results: Technical success was higher (p=0.04) for LUE (99.6%) vs RUE access (98.4%). Patients treated via RUE access more often had extent I-III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (57% vs 39%, p=0.03). Procedural metrics were similar for LUE vs RUE sides, including endovascular time (255 +/- 80 vs 246 +/- 83 minutes, respectively; p=0.23), fluoroscopy time (84 +/- 32 vs 90 +/- 35 minutes, respectively; p=0.80), and contrast volume (156 +/- 57 vs 153 +/- 56 mL, respectively; p=0.82). Total radiation exposure was significantly higher for LUE vs RUE access (2463 +/- 1912 vs 1757 +/- 1494 mGy, respectively; p=0.02). There were 2 deaths (1%) at 30 days or during hospital admission, both unrelated to access site complications. MAEs occurred in 32% of patients who had LUE and 26% of those who had RUE access (p=0.44). Five patients (2%) had embolic stroke and none had TIA. Embolic strokes were ipsilateral to the access side in 4 patients and affected the posterior circulation in 3. Two patients (1%) had hemorrhagic strokes. The incidence of stroke was 3% for LUE and 2% for RUE access (p>0.99). Conclusion: Fenestrated/branched stent-graft repair was associated with low rates of cerebral embolic events and no significant difference between the right vs left upper extremity approach.
机译:目的:评估使用右上肢(RUE)和左上肢(LUE)通道进行开窗/分支血管内动脉瘤修复(f/bEVAR)时脑栓塞事件的发生率和结果。材料和方法:在2013年至2018年间,对290名连续入选的患者进行回顾性研究,以评估f/bEVAR。在这些患者中,270名(93%)患者(平均年龄75+/-8岁;147名男性)有12-F鞘上肢通路,其中205名患者(平均年龄75+/-8岁;147名男性)有LUE通路,65名患者(平均年龄73+/-8岁;42名男性)有RUE通路。结果指标包括技术成功率、程序指标、主要不良事件(MAE)、任何中风或短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)和死亡率。结果:LUE(99.6%)的技术成功率高于RUE(98.4%)(p=0.04)。经RUE途径治疗的患者更常出现I-III级胸腹主动脉瘤(57%对39%,p=0.03)。LUE侧和RUE侧的程序指标相似,包括血管内时间(分别为255+/-80和246+/-83分钟;p=0.23)、透视时间(分别为84+/-32和90+/-35分钟;p=0.80)和对比体积(分别为156+/-57和153+/-56毫升;p=0.82)。LUE和RUE通道的总辐射暴露量显著高于RUE通道(分别为2463+/-1912和1757+/-1494 mGy;p=0.02)。30天或住院期间有2例死亡(1%),均与手术部位并发症无关。32%的LUE患者和26%的RUE患者出现MAEs(p=0.44)。5名患者(2%)有栓塞性卒中,无TIA。4例患者的栓塞性中风发生在同侧入路,3例影响后循环。两名患者(1%)患有出血性中风。LUE组和RUE组的卒中发生率分别为3%和2%(p>0.99)。结论:开窗/分支支架移植修复术与低脑栓塞事件发生率相关,右上肢和左上肢入路之间无显著差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 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