...
首页> 外文期刊>European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: Official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery >How should aortic arch aneurysms be treated in the endovascular aortic repair era? A risk-adjusted comparison between open and hybrid arch repair using propensity score-matching analysis
【24h】

How should aortic arch aneurysms be treated in the endovascular aortic repair era? A risk-adjusted comparison between open and hybrid arch repair using propensity score-matching analysis

机译:在血管内主动脉修复时代应该如何治疗主动脉弓瘤?使用倾向评分匹配分析对开放式和混合式足弓修复进行风险调整后的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives: Recent advances in endovascular aortic repair have changed the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms. The purpose of this study was to compare the early and mid-term outcomes of open repair and hybrid arch repair for aortic arch aneurysms. Methods: This study included 143 and 50 patients who underwent open aortic repair and hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), respectively, for non-dissecting aortic arch aneurysms from 2008 to 2013. The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II scores were 4.35 ± 3.65% and 7.78 ± 5.49% for the open and hybrid TEVAR groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 35 patients from each group were matched using propensity scores to adjust for differences in patient characteristics. Results: Therewas no significant difference in early mortality between the open and hybrid groups (3 vs 2%, P = 0.76). Early morbidity was equivalent in both groups, but intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay were shorter in members of the hybrid group (4.7 vs 1.6 days, P = 0.018). During the follow-up, survival rates were not significantly different (87 vs 81% at 3 years, P = 0.13), but reinterventions for the aortic arch were required in 1 patient (pseudoaneurysm) in the open group and 5 (endoleak in 4, brachiocephalic artery stenosis in 1) in the hybrid group. The rates of freedom from reintervention at 3 years were 99% in the open group and 80% in the hybrid group (P < 0.001). Propensity score matching yielded similar results for shorter ICU and hospital lengths of stay and more frequent reintervention in the hybrid group. Conclusions: Surgical outcomes in both groups were satisfactory. Hybrid TEVAR was superior in terms of early recovery from surgery; however, open arch repair showed more reliable long-term outcomes. When properly selected according to patient risk, these two strategies improve the surgical results in all patients with aortic arch aneurysms.
机译:目的:血管内主动脉修复的最新进展改变了主动脉弓瘤的治疗方法。这项研究的目的是比较开放修复和混合弓修复主动脉弓动脉瘤的早期和中期结果。方法:本研究包括143例和50例自2008年至2013年因非解剖性主动脉弓瘤接受开腹主动脉修复和混合胸腔内血管主动脉修复(TEVAR)的患者。欧洲心脏手术风险评估II系统评分为4.35开放式和混合式TEVAR组分别为±3.65%和7.78±5.49%(P <0.001)。此外,每组35名患者使用倾向评分进行匹配,以调整患者特征的差异。结果:开放组和混合组之间的早期死亡率没有显着差异(3%vs 2%,P = 0.76)。两组的早期发病率均相同,但混合组成员的重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间较短(4.7 vs 1.6天,P = 0.018)。在随访期间,存活率无显着差异(3年时分别为87%vs 81%,P = 0.13),但开放组1例(假性动脉瘤)和5例(4例发生内漏)需要主动脉弓再介入。 ,头颅肱动脉狭窄1)在混合组。开放组3年免于再次干预的自由率为99%,混合组为80%(P <0.001)。倾向得分匹配在混合组中对于较短的ICU和住院时间以及更频繁的再次干预产生了相似的结果。结论:两组的手术结果均令人满意。混合TEVAR在手术早期恢复方面表现优异。但是,开放式足弓修复术显示了更可靠的长期结果。当根据患者风险适当选择时,这两种策略均可改善所有主动脉弓瘤患者的手术效果。

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