Debakey Ⅲb型主动脉夹层腔内修复术后腹主动脉重塑的影响因素分析

背景与目的 胸主动脉腔内修复术（TEVAR）是复杂型主动脉夹层的首选治疗方法,近年来已得到广泛应用。TEVAR通常只封闭原发破口,而对夹层远端破口采取旷置处理,但在长期随访中发现旷置远端破口可导致一系列并发症,包括支架远端瘤样扩张、灌注不良导致内脏缺血及覆膜支架远端新发夹层等。此外,近期研究发现TEVAR术后支架覆盖段的胸主动脉重塑效果较好,但对于支架未覆盖的腹主动脉段重塑效果却不尽如人意,甚至出现主动脉扩张或形成夹层动脉瘤,需要再次干预。鉴于TEVAR术后腹主动脉重塑不良与患者预后密切相关,本研究探讨急性期、亚急性期Debakey Ⅲb型主动脉夹层患者TEVAR术后腹主动脉重塑情况及潜在的影响因素,为临床提供参考。方法 回顾性收集2017年5月—2023年5月南昌大学第二附属医院血管外科行TEVAR的Debakey Ⅲb型主动脉夹层患者术前、术后1年的临床信息及影像学资料,根据患者腹主动脉最大直径平面的动脉直径和真、假腔变化将患者分为未重塑组和重塑组,分析TEVAR术后腹主动脉重塑的影响因素。结果 根据纳入与排除标准,最终入选105例患者,其中未重塑组44例,重塑组61例。单因素分析结果显示,两组患者在性别、手术距发病时间、既往史等方面差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）;未重塑组与重塑组在中位年龄（62.50岁 vs. 55.00岁）、平均远端破口数量（2.98个 vs. 2.26个）、累及左肾动脉比例（38.64% vs. 19.67%）方面差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,远端破口数量是影响TEVAR术后腹主动脉重塑的独立危险因素（OR=0.589,95% CI=0.406~0.855,P=0.005）。结论 TEVAR术后部分患者腹主动脉重塑不良,远端破口数量是影响腹主动脉重塑的主要因素。对于远端破口较多者,应密切随访观察患者的主动脉重塑情况,必要时再次手术干预。     

胸主动脉腔内修复术联合限制性裸支架治疗B型主动脉夹层对术后主动脉重塑的影响

目的:探讨胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)联合限制性裸支架(RBS)治疗胸主动脉夹层对术后主动脉重塑的影响。方法:回顾性分析2012年8月—2014年8月收治的20例B型主动脉夹层患者资料,其中11例行单纯TEVAR术(TEVAR组)与9例行TEVAR联合RBS(TEVAR+RBS组)。根据术前及术后随访期间行主动脉全长CTA数据,比较两组术后主动脉重塑相关指标。结果:两组手术技术成功率均为100%,术后无截瘫、脑卒中、主动脉破裂等并发症发生。TEVAR+RBS组中RBS与覆膜支架平均重叠了36.5 mm。与TEVAR组比较,TEVAR+RBS组术后整体真腔体积扩大率明显降低(34.9%vs.64.9%,P=0.011);支架远端面积扩大率(43.5%vs.107.3%,P=0.006)、支架远端最长径扩大率(-12.2%vs.18.5%,P=0.002)均明显降低;TEVAR组与TEVAR+RBS组术后整体假腔体积缩小率(74.8%vs.65.3%,P=0.328)、假腔内血栓化比率均无统计学差异(47.3%vs.56.8%,P=0.271)。结论:与单纯TEVAR术比较,TEVAR+RBS对胸主动脉夹层术后主动脉重塑整体改善的程度并没有优势,但可有效降低TEVAR术后支架远端真腔面积(或最长径)过度扩大,因而可能降低支架远端再发破口的发生。     

Stanford B型主动脉夹层远端破口的处理

胸主动脉腔内修复(Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair,TEVAR)降低了Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者围手术期病死率,已成为一线治疗方案,但术后远端破口的问题,往往制约了患者远期生存率[1].尽管TEVAR一期封堵了主动脉第一破口,但IRAD注册研究TEVAR术后主动脉扩张发病率为62.7％[2].TEVAR最初目的是防止夹层破裂和内脏及肢体缺血,临床终点由TEVAR后主动脉重塑所决定,因为远端破口直接影响主动脉重塑和破裂事件的发生,所以远端破口是TEVAR术后需要关注的问题[3].本文旨在探讨Stanford B型主动脉夹层远端破口的处理方法,以远端破口处理的必要性、远端破口的整体解决方案、远端破口的局部解决方案3个方向为论点,结合本中心研究和既往临床资料分别论述.     

主动脉夹层TEVAR术后远端破口的临床分型及手术时机的选择

目的 探讨主动脉夹层TEVAR术后远端破口的治疗方法.方法 对新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院血管外科2006年1月-2012年4月168例行TEVAR的Stamford B型主动脉夹层患者的病例资料进行同顾性分析,根据远端破口位置的不同将其分为4型:Ⅰ型:破口位于支架尾部;Ⅱ型:破口位于胸腹主动脉,距离内脏动脉较近或累及内脏动脉;Ⅲ型:破口位于肾下腹主动脉,破口未累及内脏动脉;Ⅳ型:破口位于髂动脉.据此分型标准,对主动脉夹层TEVAR术后发生远端破口的82例患者制定相应的治疗策略并决定手术时机.结果 有82例患者支架远端仍有破口,临床分型为Ⅰ型:12例出现支架尾部破口,均行支架远端破口腔内隔绝术;Ⅱ型:47例破口位于腹主动脉并累计内脏动脉,经随访,其中4例在随访中发现假腔持续扩大或伴有症状,行“杂交”手术,即先行内脏动脉重建(髂动脉-双肾动脉,髂动脉-肠系膜上动脉,髂动脉-腹腔干人工血管搭桥术),二期行胸腹主动脉腔内隔绝术.43例患者随访发现假腔无扩大,目前继续随访.Ⅲ型:13例破口位于肾下腹主动脉,均行腔内隔绝术.Ⅳ型:10例破口位于髂动脉,均行腔内隔绝术.术后围手术期无死亡.82例患者获得随访,随访时间10 ～36个月,平均随访时间(25.6±8.4)个月,在随访过程中未发现并发症.结论 对于TEVAR术后远端破口,应根据个体情况,结合临床分型选择适宜的手术时机和手术方式,从而达到满意的治疗效果.     

体外开窗EVAR技术治疗远端主动脉夹层动脉瘤3例病例报告

自1999年Dake等首次报道应用腔内修复术（thoracic endovascular aortic repair,TEVAR）封堵主动脉夹层的近端破口治疗B型主动脉夹层（type B aortic dissection,TBAD）以来,大部分病例真腔血供改善、假腔逐渐血栓化、远端主动脉重新塑形,但是仍有部分病例支架远端主动脉假腔持续增大形成夹层动脉瘤,影响真腔供血甚至破裂。     

急性Stanford B型主动脉夹层行腔内隔绝术后的主动脉重塑CSCD

目的 探讨急性Stanford B型主动脉夹层行胸主动脉腔内修复（thoracic endovascular aor-tic repair,TEVAR）术后的主动脉重塑过程及形态学变化.方法 回顾性分析2015年9月至2016年8月诊断为急性Stanford B型主动脉夹层且行TEVAR手术的51例患者临床资料,利用CTA图像测量原发破口水平、气管分叉水平、腹腔干动脉水平及左肾动脉下缘水平真腔、假腔直径,并计算术后真、假腔直径变化率.结果 近端破口水平,术后真腔扩大及假腔缩小在术后1个月和1年最为明显（P〈0.05）,在术后3个月及术后6个月较为稳定,真、假腔均无明显变化（P〉0.05）.气管分叉水平,真腔持续扩大而假腔持续缩小.在腹腔干动脉及左肾动脉下缘水平,真腔直径呈缓慢增大趋势,而假腔直径变化不明显.结论 急性Stanford B型主动脉夹层行TEVAR术后,胸主动脉段重塑较佳,真腔得到明显恢复,假腔明显减小,假腔血栓形成并吸收率高,而对于支架血管未能覆盖的降主动脉远端重塑作用则较差.     

腔内修复术治疗多破口Stanford B型胸主动脉夹层的临床研究

目的 分析多破口Stanford B型胸主动脉夹层的临床特征,探讨胸主动脉腔内修复术处理该病的临床方式.方法 回顾性分析2011年2月-2015年5月因多破口(≥2个破口)Stanford B型胸主动脉夹层在广州军区武汉总医院心胸外科接收TEVAR治疗患者的病例资料,除近心端第一破口外,使用外科方式处理远端夹层破口为处理组,否则为非处理组.比较两组术后6个月内胸背疼痛发病率、远端夹层进展情况、假腔变化情况、远端破口获益情况.结果 检索出符合条件的病例67例,所有腔内修复术均获成功,无严重并发症发生病例,术后6个月内无死亡病例.处理组7例,非处理组60例.TEVAR后两组胸背疼痛发病率、远端夹层进展发病率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),处理组夹层假腔较非处理组明显变小(差异有统计学意义,P＜0.05),非处理组19例患者通过夹层远端破口的血流供应腹腔内脏动脉.结论 TEVAR是治疗多破口Stanford B型胸主动脉夹层有效的手术方式,远端破口应根据Stanford B型胸主动脉夹层特点进行个性化处理或尽量不处理.     

"杂交手术"治疗主动脉夹层

目的 总结主动脉夹层病人行人工血管置换同时术中植入血管内支架(即"杂交手术")的外科经验.方法 主动脉夹层6例中急性Standford A型4例,其中破口分别在升主动脉2例、降主动脉1例,升降主动脉均有破口1例.行升主动脉并全弓置换同时术中于降主动脉真腔内置入血管内支架(同时行主动脉瓣成型2例、Bentall手术1例);慢性StaMford B型主动脉夹层2例,均为介入无法完成者,破口较大、均在降主动脉起始部、左锁骨下动脉下方,行近端降主动脉置换同时术中于远端降主动脉真腔内置入血管内支架.术后2周及3个月复查全主动脉螺旋CT,了解胸腹主动脉、人工血管及血管内支架情况.结果 所有病人手术成功,体外循环时间38～228 min(平均92 min).Standford A型夹层升主动脉阻断118～186 min(平均136min)、选择性脑灌注33～68min(平均49min);Standford B型夹层:1例在上、下半身分别停循环22、28 min下完成手术,另1例常温下不停循环、保持下半身灌注完成手术.术后恢复顺利,治愈出院.术后2周及3个月复查主动脉螺旋CT示人工血管血流通畅,血管内支架无内瘘及移位,支架远端主动脉真腔扩大、假腔明显缩小.结论 对于夹层撕裂范围广泛、多破口的主动脉夹层病人,行近端夹层动脉瘤切除、人工血管置换同时在远端真腔内植入血管内支架,是一种安全、有效、经济的手术方法.     

亚急性期Stanford B型主动脉夹层腔内隔绝术后主动脉重塑的特点及影响因素

目的:探讨亚急性期Stanford B型主动脉夹层胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)后的血管重塑特点及影响因素。方法:回顾性分析2008年1月—2016年6月于安徽省立医院血管外科行TEVAR的50例亚急性期Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者术前及术后临床及影像学资料,分析术后3、6、12个月主动脉各平面段真假腔直径及假腔血栓化情况及术后主动脉重塑的影响因素。结果:TEVAR手术技术成功率为100%。术后8例失访。其余42例患者的影像学资料分析结果显示,TEVAR术后各时间点胸主动脉段真腔直径较术前明显扩大、假腔直径较术前明显缩小(均P0.05),而腹主动脉段真腔和假腔变化与术前均无统计学差异(均P0.05);胸主动脉段术后假腔血栓化比率高于腹主动脉。多因素分析显示,假腔内存在分支血管灌注(OR=27.45,P0.05)、存在多破口(OR=19.02,P0.05)是TEVAR术后主动脉重塑不良的独立危险因素。结论:亚急性期Stanford B型主动脉夹层行TEVAR后胸主动脉段重塑优于腹主动脉段;假腔内存在分支血管灌注、存在多破口是TEVAR术后主动脉重塑不良的独立危险因素。     

限制性裸支架在急性Standford A型主动脉夹层中的应用

目的观察限制性裸支架释放于急性Standford A型主动脉夹层支架象鼻远端的应用效果。方法回顾性分析2016年11月至2018年2月我院大血管中心对急性Standford A型主动脉夹层需行主动脉弓置换+支架象鼻手术同期行限制性裸支架置入22例患者的临床资料,其中男19例、女3例,平均年龄34～68(49.72±8.05)岁。先将裸支架释放于胸降主动脉内,再将支架象鼻置于裸支架内,出院前复查主动脉血管CT造影,观察支架位置及并发症情况。结果 1例患者裸支架置入时阻力较大,自行脱出而放弃置入;余21例患者成功完成限制性裸支架置入。术后1例患者住院期间因大面积脑梗死而死亡,1例截瘫。生存并成功置入裸支架的20例患者均定期随访4～21(13.00±6.14)个月,随访期内无卒中、死亡。计算机体层扫描血管成像检查示支架形态、位置良好,无移位及Ⅲ型内漏发生,未见支架远端新发破口。结论作为支架象鼻手术的辅助治疗手段,限制性裸支架的使用能减少支架源性新发破口的发生且可以明显扩张支架象鼻远端血管真腔口径,主动脉重塑效果良好。     

Risk factors for distal stent graft-induced new entry tear after endovascular repair of thoracic aortic dissection

ObjectiveA review of the literature was conducted for incidence, outcomes, and risk factors for distal stent graft-induced new entry (SINE) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of aortic dissection.MethodsThe review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsSeven articles reporting on 1415 patients with thoracic aortic dissection undergoing TEVAR without supplemental distal bare stenting were included. In this cohort, 86 patients were treated for a residual type A aortic dissection and 1329 for a complicated type B aortic dissection. Distal SINE occurred in 112 patients (7.9%). The mean time to identification of distal SINE was 19 ± 7 months. The incidence of distal SINE after TEVAR for type B aortic dissection differed on the basis of whether it was a chronic or acute dissection repair and was, respectively, 12.9% (43/331) and 4.3% (12/273). Successful secondary interventions were performed in 54% of the patients. All the studies analyzing the relationship between distal stent graft oversizing and incidence of distal SINE reported a significantly higher rate of SINE with oversizing.ConclusionsThe successful management of complicated descending thoracic aortic dissections by TEVAR is well established. Whereas distal SINE is relatively frequent, if it does occur, the complication can generally be treated with additional TEVAR without a poor outcome. The main determinant of SINE seems to be excessive distal oversizing.     

Restrictive bare stent prevents distal stent graft-induced new entry in endovascular repair of type B aortic dissection

Objective

Distal stent graft-induced new entry (SINE) can occur after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of type B aortic dissection. This study investigated the mechanism of distal SINE and its prevention using a restrictive bare stent (RBS) technique.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair with stent grafts alone or with a composite device design in patients with acute type B aortic dissection in the setting of malperfusion

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes in patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with stent grafts alone or with a composite device design (stent graft plus bare-metal aortic stent) for acute type B aortic dissection in the setting of malperfusion.MethodsThis retrospective analysis included patients with acute (≤14 days of symptom onset) complicated type B dissection in the setting of malperfusion who were treated with stent grafts alone (TEVAR cohort) at two European institutions vs those who underwent TEVAR with a composite device design (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) in the investigational STABLE I feasibility study and STABLE II pivotal study (STABLE cohort). Preoperative characteristics and 30-day outcomes (including mortality, malperfusion-related mortality, morbidity, and secondary interventions) were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe TEVAR cohort (41 patients; mean age, 58.8 ± 12.7 years; 78.0% male) and the STABLE cohort (84 patients; mean age, 57.8 ± 11.7 years; 71.4% male) were largely similar in preoperative medical characteristics, with more STABLE patients presenting with a history of hypertension (79.8% vs 58.5%; P = .018). The TEVAR and STABLE groups had similar lengths of dissection (451.8 ± 112.7 mm vs 411.8 ± 116.4 mm; P = .10) and similar proximal and distal extent of dissection. At presentation, the two groups exhibited comparable organ system involvement in malperfusion: renal (53.7% TEVAR, 57.1% STABLE), gastrointestinal (41.5% TEVAR, 44.0% STABLE), lower extremities (34.1% TEVAR, 52.4% STABLE), and spinal cord (9.8% TEVAR, 2.4% STABLE). The 30-day rate of all-cause mortality was 17.1% (7/41) in the TEVAR group and 8.3% (7/84) in the STABLE group (P = .22). The 30-day rate of malperfusion-related mortality (deaths from bowel/mesenteric ischemia or multiple organ failure) was 12% (5/41) in the TEVAR group and 2.4% (2/84) in the STABLE group (P = .038). The 30-day morbidity, for the TEVAR and STABLE groups, respectively, included bowel ischemia (9.8% [4/41] vs 2.4% [2/84]; P = .09), renal failure requiring dialysis (7.3% [3/41] vs 9.5% [8/84]; P > .99), paraplegia or paraparesis (4.9% [2/41] vs 3.6% [3/84]; P = .66), and stroke (2.4% [1/41] vs 10.7% [9/84]; P = .16). The occurrence of 30-day secondary intervention was similar in the TEVAR and STABLE groups (7.3% [3/41] vs 7.1% [6/84]; P > .99). True lumen expansion in the abdominal aorta was significantly greater in the STABLE group.ConclusionsIn patients with acute type B aortic dissection in the setting of branch vessel malperfusion, the use of a composite device with proximal stent grafts and distal bare aortic stent appeared to result in lower malperfusion-related mortality than the use of stent grafts alone. The 30-day rates of morbidity and secondary interventions were similar between the groups.     

“�̴�”���������ۼ�������֧����������Զ����Ч�о�

??Chimney technique for aortic diseases involving supra-aortic branches in a single center SHU Chang, WANG Tun. Department of Vascular Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410011, China
Corresponding author: SHU Chang, E-mail??changshu01@yahoo.com
Abstract Objective To evaluate the mid- and long-term efficiency of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with chimney technique for aortic arch disease involving the supra-aortic branches. Methods The clinical data of 57 cases of aortic arch diseases performed TEVAR with chimney technique from September 2009 to December 2013 in Department of Vascular Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University were analyzed retrospectively. There were 2 cases (3.5%) of aortic arch aneurysm, 1 case (1.8%) of type I endoleak after TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysm, 1 case (1.8%) of type I endoleak after TEVAR for type B aortic dissection (TBAD), 53 cases (92.9%) of TBAD. One case was complicated with Marfan syndrome. Results All of the stent grafts were deployed as planned. Five cases had type II endoleak during TEVAR. One case received re-TEVAR and another chimney stent grafts deployment because of ischemia of branch arteries caused by migration of chimney stent grafts during anesthesia resuscitation. All patients followed up for 2 to 51 months. One case of TBAD received re-TEVAR for distal re-entry. One case died of cerebral hemorrhage 3 months later. No TEVAR related complications happened, such as stent graft migration, occlusion, fracture or type I endoleak during follow-up. Conclusion Chimney technique can be used with TEVAR to treat aortic arch disease invaded supra-aortic branches, which is reliable and stable. Reconstructed supra-aortic branches with covered stent is useful for prevention of post-TEVAR complications     

单分支主动脉覆膜支架修复伴锚定区不足的急性Stanford B型夹层：附8例报告

背景与目的 单分支型主动脉覆膜支架及其传输系统是近年国内研发的新型支架系统,适用于锚定区不足的主动脉夹层,是累及左锁骨下动脉（LSA）主动脉夹层的新选择。笔者通过总结使用该支架系统行胸主动脉覆膜支架腔内隔绝术（TEVAR）治疗锚定区不足的急性Stanford B型的病例,评估其近期效果与安全性。方法 回顾性收集2019年4月—2020年1月,在云南省阜外心血管病医院血管外科采用Castor^?一体化分支型主动脉覆膜支架行TEVAR的Stanford B型夹层伴锚定区不足的8例患者的临床资料。分析手术过程及围手术期并发症情况。结果 8例患者中,男7例（87.5%）,女1例（12.5%）;中位年龄42（33~64）岁;BMI（25.5±3.8）kg/m²。8例均成功植入支架,初始技术成功率100%,无围手术期死亡及神经系统并发症,无I型内漏。平均住院时间为（14.8±3.7）d。平均随访时间为223（60~370）d,所有主体、分支支架血管通畅、无相关I和III型内漏,无神经系统并发症,无左上肢缺血表现。结论 应用单分支覆膜支架行TEVAR治疗Stanford B型夹层伴锚定区不足是一种安全、有效的方法,中远期疗效有待随访。     

Stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination of distal remaining aortic dissection after acute DeBakey type I repair

ObjectivesSurgical repair in patients with acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection (ADIAD) achieves good short-term results, but in several patients the false lumen remains patent in the descending aorta because of distal intimal tears with persisting risk for distal aneurismal evolution. We report the short- and mid-term outcomes of the stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination of aortic dissection (STABILISE) technique for the 16 first patients treated for a residual dissection of the descending thoracic aorta after repaired ADIAD.MethodsWe reviewed all patients treated with STABILISE for a remaining distal thoracoabdominal aortic dissection after ADIAD repair.ResultsFrom March 2016 to March 2018, 16 patients with previous surgery for ADIAD underwent the STABILISE procedure during the same hospitalization in a second-stage procedure to extend the repair within the descending thoracic aorta. The median age was 56 years (range, 43-65 years). Indication for the STABILISE procedure was persisting false lumen patency within the thoracic descending aorta associated with malperfusion symptoms in 13 patients and associated with dissecting aneurysm of the descending thoracic aorta >40 mm in 3 patients. Technical success was achieved in 100%. Eight (12.5%) renal arteries required stenting during the procedure. In-hospital mortality was 6% (n = 1). There was no stroke, spinal cord ischemia, ischemic colitis, or renal failure requiring dialysis. Median length of follow-up was 8 months (range, 3-24 months). One patient developed a proximal type 1 endoleak in the arch and required reintervention for proximal extension of the stent graft in zone 2. The primary visceral patency rate was 100%. There were no late deaths reported. At last computed tomography scan, all patients had complete aortic remodeling of the treated thoracoabdominal aorta with no aortic enlargement.ConclusionsThe STABILISE technique, in patients with remaining distal thoracoabdominal aortic dissection at the acute stage of a type A repair, allowed an immediate remodeling of the thoracoabdominal aorta, which should improve their long-term outcomes in terms of aortic-related events.     

矫正性裸支架理念在治疗复杂主动脉疾病中的应用

目的探讨矫正性裸支架理念在复杂主动脉病变中应用价值。方法回顾分析接受腔内修复术联合矫正性裸支架治疗的13例复杂主动脉夹层及2例肾下腹主动脉瘤患者的资料。结果 13例主动脉夹层患者中,植入Valiant支架11例,Grikin支架2例;2例腹主动脉瘤患者均植入Zenith支架。对15例患者共植入矫正性裸支架19枚;主动脉夹层裸支架17枚,长度60~80mm,直径18~24mm;腹主动脉瘤裸支架2枚,长度均为60mm,直径分别为24mm和7mm。所有患者术后无严重并发症。15例中,14例完成随访,1例失访,随访期间无支架源性夹层或内漏发生及假性动脉瘤、髂支血栓形成。结论矫正性裸支架理念有助于拓宽主动脉病变腔内治疗的适应证,且安全、微创、近期疗效满意。