腹主动脉瘤33例诊断和手术治疗体会

目的探讨腹主动脉瘤的诊断和手术治疗经验。方法1996年6月至2004年12月间,诊断和手术治疗腹主动脉瘤33例,其中胸腹主动脉瘤1例。均采用动脉瘤切除人造血管移植术。结果腹主动脉瘤破裂急诊手术7例,2例死亡。择期手术26例,无一例死亡。结论术前诊断和掌握手术时机是提高手术成功的关键。应用16排螺旋CT主动脉造影(sixteen-detector row computed tomography aortic angiography,16排螺旋CTA)在腹主动脉瘤诊断中具有无创、安全、快速、方便等优点,具有应用价值。对有手术指征的腹主动脉瘤应积极手术治疗,提高传统手术技术使腹主动脉瘤手术更为安全。     

Five-year outcomes of physician-modified endografts for repair of complex abdominal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveThere is paucity of data on the durability of physician modified endografts (PMEGs) for complex abdominal (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) despite widespread use. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the early and long-term outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) for CAAAs and TAAAs using PMEGs.MethodsWe reviewed clinical data and outcomes of patients treated by FB-EVAR using PMEGs for CAAAs (defined as short-neck infrarenal, juxtarenal, and pararenal AAAs) and TAAAs between 2007 and 2019. All patients were treated by a dedicated team with extensive manufactured device experience. Endpoints included 30-day mortality and major adverse events, patient survival and freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), freedom from secondary intervention, target artery (TA) patency, and freedom from TA endoleak and TA instability.ResultsOf 645 patients undergoing FB-EVAR, 156 patients (24%) treated with PMEG (121 males; mean age, 75 ± 8 years) were included. There were 89 CAAAs, 33 extent IV TAAAs and 34 extent I to III TAAAs. A total of 452 renal-mesenteric targets (3.1 ± 1.0 vessels/patient) were incorporated. Patients with TAAAs had significantly (P < .05) larger aneurysms (73 ± 11 vs 68 ± 14 mm), more TAs incorporated (3.4 ± 0.9 vs 2.8 ± 1.0), and more often had previous aortic repair (54% vs 27%). Technical success was higher in patients treated for CAAAs (99% vs 91%; P = .04). Thirty-day and/or in-hospital mortality was 5.7% and was significantly lower for CAAAs compared with TAAAs (2% vs 10%; P = .04), with three of nine early mortalities (33%) among patients treated emergently. After a mean follow-up of 49 ± 38 months, there were 12 aortic-related deaths (7.6%), including nine early deaths (5.7%) from perioperative complications and three late deaths (1.9%) from rupture. At 5 years, patient survival was 41%. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher 5-year freedom from ARM (P = .016), TA instability (P = .05), TA endoleak (P = .01), and TA secondary interventions (P = .05) with a higher, but non-significant, freedom from sac enlargement ≥5 mm (P = .11). Primary and secondary TA patency was 91% ± 2% and 99% ± 1%, respectively. Sac regression ≥5 mm occurred in 67 patients (43%) and was associated with increased survival (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.80) compared with those without sac regression.ConclusionsFB-EVAR using PMEGs was performed with acceptable long-term outcomes. Overall patient survival was low due to significant underlying comorbidities. Patients treated for CAAAs had higher freedom from ARM, TA instability, TA endoleak, TA secondary interventions, and a trend towards higher freedom from sac enlargement compared with patients treated for TAAAs. Sac regression was associated with improved patient survival.     

采用胸分支型主动脉支架人工血管对主动脉弓降部夹层行腔内修复治疗

目的探讨采用胸分支型主动脉支架人工血管治疗累及左锁骨下动脉的主动脉弓降部夹层的临床效果。方法自2004年2月至2004年6月,采用血管腔内胸分支型主动脉支架人工血管治疗主动脉弓部夹层14例。14例均为StanforB型主动脉夹层,原发破裂口距左锁骨下动脉开口2～13mm,平均8．7mm。分支型支架由主动脉段支架和分支段支架组成,支架直径较相应支撑部位动脉直径大15％～20％。治疗在血管造影室进行,应用定位导丝、在透视下将分支型主动脉支架人工血管送人并连续释置入主动脉弓和左锁骨下动脉。结果支架释放全部成功。14例患者共放置14只分支型主动脉支架和2只可弯曲型支架人工血管,封闭夹层破裂口,夹层真腔全部恢复正常直径。无远端动脉并发症发生,无死亡病例。全部患者术后恢复正常活动。结论胸分支型主动脉支架人工血管适合于修复破裂口位于左锁骨下动脉开口旁的主动脉弓部夹层。     

Comparison of midterm results of endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured and elective abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) became an increasingly preferred modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair both in elective AAA repair (el-EVAR) and EVAR of a ruptured AAA (r-EVAR) setting. Ruptured AAAs usually have more hostile anatomies and less time for planning. Consequently, more complications may arise after r-EVAR. The purpose of this study was to compare mi-term outcomes between r-EVAR and el-EVAR.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing EVAR from 2000 to 2015 at a tertiary institution was performed. Patients with previous aortic surgery, nonatherosclerotic AAA and isolated iliac aneurysms were excluded. In-hospital casualties or patients who were intraoperatively converted to open repair were also excluded. For the midterm outcome analysis, only patients with at least two postoperative examinations (a 30-day computed tomography scan and a second postoperative examination performed 6 months or later) were considered. The primary end point was freedom from aneurysm-related complications (a composite of type I or III endoleak, aneurysm sac growth, migration of more than 5 mm, device integrity failure, AAA-related death, late postimplant rupture, or AAA-related secondary intervention). Freedom from secondary interventions, neck-related events (defined as a composite of type IA endoleak, migration of more than 5 mm, or preemptive neck-related secondary intervention) and late survival were secondary end points. The impact of device instructions for use (IFU) compliance on neck events was also assessed.ResultsThe study included 565 patients (65 r-EVAR and 500 el-EVAR). Eighty-two patients were treated outside proximal neck IFU, 13 in the r-EVAR group (21.3%) and 69 (14.5%) in the el-EVAR (P = .16). During the index hospitalization, there were more complications (12.3% vs 3.2%; P = .001) and reinterventions (12.3% vs 2.8%; P < .001) in the r-EVAR group. After discharge, median clinical follow-up time was 4.3 years (interquartile range, 2.1-7.0 years) without differences between both groups. Five-year freedom from AAA-related complications was 53.9% in the r-EVAR group and 65.4% in the el-EVAR (P = .21). In multivariable analysis the r-EVAR group was not at increased risk for late complications (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.61; P = .81). Five-year freedom from neck-related events was 74% in r-EVAR and 82% in the el-EVAR group (P = .345). Patients treated outside neck IFU were at greater risk for neck-related events both in r-EVAR (HR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-22.9; P = .004) and el-EVAR group (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P < .001). Freedom from secondary interventions at 5 years was 63.0% for r-EVAR and 76.9% for el-EVAR (P = .16). Survival at 5 years was 68.8% in the r-EVAR group and 73.3% in the el-EVAR group (P = .30).ConclusionsDurable and sustainable midterm outcomes were found for both r-EVAR and el-EVAR patients who survived the postoperative period. Patients treated outside the IFU are at greater risk for late complications. Surveillance protocols may be tailored according to individual anatomy and IFU compliance rather than timing of repair.     

解剖条件复杂的肾下型腹主动脉瘤的腔内治疗

目的 探讨腔内修复术治疗复杂解剖条件肾下型腹主动脉瘤的安全性和有效性.方法 对2003年1月至2011年3月接受经股动脉植入分体式覆膜支架治疗解剖条件复杂的48例腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析.男性37例,女性11例;年龄50～81岁,平均71.4岁.其中近端短瘤颈(＜15 mm) 14例,近端瘤颈成角大(＞60°)13例,复杂髂动脉解剖者21例,其中髂动脉严重扭曲者15例,髂动脉狭窄(直径＜7 mm)者6例.结果 所有病例治疗均获成功,术中无中转开腹手术者,围手术期生存率100％.40例患者获得随访,随访时间4-122个月,平均63个月,死亡2例,均为心脑血管意外,其余生存良好,累积生存率95.8％.Ⅰ型内漏2例,其中1例2周后消失,1例长期存在,随访过程中未发现新发内漏、支架移位或堵塞、瘤体扩大或瘤体破裂等并发症;2例封堵一侧大部分肾动脉的患者恢复良好,术后未出现肾功能不全.结论 腔内修复术治疗复杂解剖条件肾下型腹主动脉瘤安全、有效.随着经验的不断积累,腔内修复术在治疗解剖条件复杂的肾下型腹主动脉瘤中将发挥更重要的作用.     

Endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms is a rapidly evolving technique that has gained broad acceptance in the treatment of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: A review of the English literature was done to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Reports of complications such as endoleak, graft migration, graft limb occlusion, aneurysm rupture, and aneurysm enlargement were evaluated. RESULTS: Short-term results of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms are excellent. The necessity for open conversions is less than 5%. The cumulative risk of aneurysm rupture is approximately 1% per year. The coverall incidence of graft limb occlusion was 2.8% in the follow-up period. The cumulative risk for a secondary procedure was 12% at 1 year, 24% at 2 years, and 35% at 3 years. Moderate and severe neck angulation was associated with an increased incidence of adverse events in the follow-up period. Endografts have the potential to become infected and develop aortoduodenal fistula. The treatment of ruptured aneurysms with endovascular grafts has been successful and a technique that is increasingly used. CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm is an effective technique with excellent short-term results. The long-term results remain to be determined. Ongoing surveillance is necessary to avoid late complications of aneurysm rupture.     

非体外循环下全主动脉弓替换术治疗主动脉弓降部动脉瘤的早、中期结果

目的 评价采用常温、非体外循环下全主动脉弓替换手术治疗主动脉弓、降部动脉瘤的术后早、中期结果.方法 2004年4月至11月,对连续7例主动脉弓降部动脉瘤病人实施常温、非体外循环下全主动脉弓替换手术.术后对所有病人进行长期随访,随访截止日期为2011年3月.7例均为男性,年龄23～75岁,中位年龄57岁.真性动脉瘤3例,假性动脉瘤4例,其中1例为弓降部巨大假性动脉瘤覆膜支架置入术失败者.采用胸部正中与左胸前外侧联合切口,全身肝素化后,依次在升主动脉前外侧壁安放主动脉侧壁钳,降主动脉与头臂动脉分别放置主动脉阻断钳,将带四分支人工血管依次与升主动脉行端-侧吻合、与降主动脉及3支头臂动脉行端-端吻合,最后闭合升主动脉残端,切除弓降部主动脉瘤壁.结果 平均胸降主动脉阻断(13.6±5.6)min,左颈总动脉阻断(5.7±0.8)min,无名动脉阻断(7.8±2.5)min,左锁骨下动脉阻断(11.2±1.5)min.术后使用呼吸机平均(12.3±4.1)h.病人全部生存.与同期常温体外循环下主动脉弓替换手术组相比,本组机械通气时间显著减少.无神经系统并发症.术后CT扫描结果显示,主动脉弓降部人工血管形态佳,吻合口周围无渗漏或假性动脉瘤形成.全组平均随访(79.7±2.1)个月,病人生活质量良好,复查CT结果均未见异常.无远期死亡.结论 在常温、非体外循环状态下实施全主动脉弓替换手术,是一种治疗主动脉弓、降部真性或假性动脉瘤的安全、有效的方法,严格把握手术适应证是手术成功的关键.

Abstract：

Objective Study the early and midterm results of a technique-total aortic arch replacement without using extracorporeal circulation or aortic bypass for the treatment of aortic aneurismal disease involving the transverse aortic arch and proximal descending aorta. Methods Between April and November 2004, 7 consecutive patients with true (n = 3) or false (n =4) aortic aneurysm underwent this procedure. The mean follow-up was 6. 6 years. The median age at operation was 57years ( range 23 to 75 years). Normothermia general anesthesia and median sternotomy combined with left anterior thoracotomy were administered. A partially occluding clamp was placed on ascending aorta and a longitude aortic incision was made. Anastomosis of a branched graft to ascending aorta in an end-to-side fashion was commenced. The descending aorta distal to the aneurysm was occluded and transected, and anastomosed to the distal end of the branched graft in an end-to-end fashion. Finally,the arch vessels were divided and anastomosed to the branches of the graft and the aneurysm excised. Results The average cross-clamp time of descending aorta, left common carotid artery, and innominate artery was (13.6 ±5.6)min, (5.7 ±0.8)min, and (7.8±2.5) min respectively. The mean intubation time was (12.3 ±4.1) hours. There were no adverse outcomes or neurologic complications in this series. All patients survived and recovered completely. The mean follow-up time was (79.7 ±2.1) months. All patients lead a normal life. There was no late death. CT follow-up study 6 years after surgery reveals no abnormal image. Conclusion Total aortic arch replacement without cardiopulmonary and aortic bypass is a feasible and effective method for the aortic aneurismal disease involving the transverse aortic arch and proximal descending aorta in selected patients.     

高危复杂腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术临床分析

目的 评估应用多种腔内技术治疗高危复杂腹主动脉瘤的可行性.方法 2001年1月至2010年12月,共138例腹主动脉瘤患者接受腹主动脉腔内修复术(EVAR),其中9例患者为高危复杂性腹主动脉瘤.男性8例,女性1例,年龄26～87岁,平均67岁.其中2例近肾腹主动脉假性动脉瘤,5例近肾腹主动脉瘤,1例腹主动脉瘤合并双髂总动脉瘤及左侧髂内动脉瘤,1例EVAR术后右髂内动脉瘤.所采用的腔内技术包括:主动脉支架开窗技术和扇形技术2例,烟囱技术5例,球囊辅助下髂内动脉瘤腔内治疗1例和球囊辅助反转支架技术1例.结果 所有腔内技术均获得成功.术中支架释放后即刻发现内漏4例,其中1例患者为Ⅰ型和Ⅲ型内漏,经大动脉球囊扩张后内漏消失;2例Ⅰ型内漏,其中1例行弹簧栓栓塞成功,另1例行近端裸支架成功.1例Ⅱ型内漏,经随访瘤腔直径未增大,未处理.随访4～79个月,平均25.9个月.无动脉瘤破裂,动脉瘤瘤体直径均有不同程度的缩小.随访过程中7例患者的靶血管(肾动脉、肠系膜上动脉和髂内动脉)均保持通畅.1例髂内动脉重建支架术后18个月血栓形成,但无盆腔缺血等症状.结论 对于不能耐受手术的高危复杂腹主动脉瘤患者,选择合适的腔内技术可以增加EVAR术的成功率,近、中期效果满意.     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中特殊远端锚定区的处理策略

目的 探讨对腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术(EVAR)中特殊远端锚定区的评估及处理方法.方法 回顾性分析2007年1月至2010年12月应用EVAR治疗的66例复杂远端锚定区腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料.其中男性45例,女性21例,年龄53～87岁,平均62岁.本组Ⅰ型及ⅡA型病例共20例,其中髂总或髂外动脉＞50％狭窄10例,髂总或髂外动脉严重扭曲者6例,合并以上情况者4例;双髂总合并髂内动脉瘤46例(单侧32例,双侧14例).支架血管移植物采用Medtronic 46例,COOK 14例,Microport 4例,Lifetech 2例.结果 平均手术时间90 min,术中移植物明显短缩22例(33.3％),Ⅱ型内漏18例(18/66,27.3％),Ⅲ型内漏5例(7.6％),髂支＞50％的狭窄2例(3.0％),同时合并Ⅱ、Ⅲ型内漏5例(7.6％),同时合并髂支狭窄及Ⅲ型内漏4例(6.1％).本组随访时间3～36个月,平均22个月,随访期间内移植物向远端移位2例(3.0％),移位均＜10 mm,髂支再狭窄(＞50％)2例,Ⅱ型内漏自行消失18例(18/23,78.3％),Ⅲ型内漏0例;死亡2例.结论 复杂远端锚定区增加了EVAR并发症发生率.熟悉移植物特性,合理应用处理策略,可提高EVAR技术成功率.     

腹主动脉瘤开放手术与腔内修复术中期结果比较的单中心前瞻性研究

目的 比较腹主动脉瘤开放手术与腔内修复的治疗效果.方法 2009年1月到2011年1月随机入组既符合开放手术又符合腔内修复指征的腹主动脉瘤患者84例,分别行开放手术及腔内修复.其中腔内修复组48例,男性42例(87.5％),女性6例(12.5％);年龄50～83岁,平均70.8岁.开放手术组36例,其中男性31例(86.1％),女性5例(13.9％);年龄50～80岁,平均67.4岁.对围手术期及随访结果进行对比分析.结果 两组手术时间(t=9.863,P=0.000)、术中出血量(t=4.647,P=0.000)、术中输血量(t=3.334,P=0.002)和住院时间(t=2.327,P=0.022)、住院费用(t =2.314,P=0.023)差异有统计学意义.随访3～6个月,两组围手术期并发症发生率(x2=0.480,P=0.488)、术后3个月并发症发生率(x2=0.664,P=0.415)及病死率(P=0.429)、术后6个月并发症发生率(x2 =0.128,P=0.720)差异无统计学意义.结论 腹主动脉瘤腔内修复在手术时间、出血量、输血量、住院时间等方面优于开放手术,但有较高的住院费用.围手术期及术后随访两组的并发症发生率无差异,生存率及远期并发症发生率比较尚需更长时间随访及更大的样本量.     

巨大和长段胸主动脉瘤的血管腔内修复术治疗

目的探讨巨大和长段胸主动脉瘤行带膜支架主动脉腔内修复治疗的可行性。方法对3例10．6～28．0cm长真性胸主动脉瘤的男性患者,采用多个带膜支架相连接成一条长段支架型人工血管,行主动脉腔内修复治疗。对瘤体全长28．0cm、最大直径7．3cm的病例,采用4个长度为130mm的不同直径的带膜支架相连接覆盖胸主动脉;另2例分别用2枚、3枚带膜支架治疗。2例术中先行颈总动脉-颈总动脉和颈总动脉-锁骨下动脉旁路术。结果3例手术过程顺利,术后恢复良好。2例术后无内漏,分别随访1,2个月,瘤腔内血栓形成;1例在支架连接处有少量内漏,术后1年消失,瘤腔内血栓形成。1例术后出现短暂脑缺血表现,1个月后消失。结论采用多个带膜支架相连接对巨大和长段胸主动脉瘤行主动脉腔内修复治疗,安全、微创,疗效良好,远期效果有待观察。     

降主动脉假性动脉瘤腔内治疗临床分析

目的 分析评价降主动脉假性动脉瘤腔内修复(EVAR)的可行性、疗效和结果.方法 回顾性分析2007年4月到2010年11月20例降主动脉假性动脉瘤患者的临床资料.其中男性18例,女性2例;年龄28～82岁,平均(58±16)岁.20例中贝赫切特综合征4例,确诊感染性假性动脉瘤6例,疑诊感染性假性动脉瘤5例,医源性损伤1例,合并慢性粒-单核细胞白血病1例,原因不明3例.假性动脉瘤分布部位以腹主动脉多见(88.5％).20例中EVAR 15例,开放手术2例,未手术治疗3例.回顾性分析15例EVAR患者的治疗情况及随访结果.结果 15例降主动脉假性动脉瘤EVAR技术成功率15/15,共放置腹主动脉分叉型覆膜支架6个,腹主动脉直筒型覆膜支架6个,胸主动脉直筒型覆膜支架2个和肾上腹主动脉裸支架1个.1例采用了裸支架支撑下弹簧栓栓塞术.围手术期病死率为0,除2例原发性Ⅳ型内漏外,无原发性Ⅰ型内漏发生.14例获得随访,随访率14/15,平均随访时间538 d,随访期间总病死率4/14,动脉瘤相关事件发生率6/14,二次手术率1/14,无动脉瘤相关事件存活率8/14.结论 对降主动脉假性动脉瘤行EVAR,具备一定的技术可行性,其技术成功率高,围手术期间病死率低,但随访期间动脉瘤复发、增大、破裂以致死亡的风险较大.病因治疗、严密随访可能有助于改善主动脉假性动脉瘤EVAR的预后.     

Long-term results after standard endovascular aneurysm repair with the Endurant and Excluder stent grafts

ObjectiveMany endografts are currently available for standard endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Comparison of long-term outcomes between devices might aid in this decision process, but comparative data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to report long-term clinical outcomes of two commercially available endoprosthesis, the Endurant (Medtronic Vascular, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) and the Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) stent grafts.MethodsPatients undergoing standard endovascular repair from July 2004 to December 2011 in a single institution with the Endurant or the Low-Porosity Excluder endografts were eligible. Only patients treated for intact degenerative abdominal infrarenal aneurysms were included. All measurements were performed on center-lumen line reconstructions obtained on dedicated software. The primary end point was primary clinical success, defined as clinical success without the need for an additional or secondary surgical or endovascular procedure. Neck-related events (a composite of type IA endoleak, neck-related secondary intervention, or migration of >5 mm), neck morphology changes, renal function, and overall survival were secondary end points.ResultsThe study included 277 patients (156 Endurants; 121 Excluders). The median follow-up was 5.8 years (range, 0.1-12.4 years) and did not differ between groups (P = .18). Patients treated with the Endurant stent graft had wider (neck diameter of >28 mm, 27.3% vs 1.7% [P < .001]; neck diameter of 27 mm, [interquartile range (IQR), 24-29 mm] for Endurant and 24 mm [IQR, 22-25 mm] for Excluder; P < .001) and more angulated necks (β-angle of >60°, 26.7% vs 12.5%; P = .004). Oversizing was greater in the Endurant group (16% [IQR, 12%-22%] vs 13% [IQR, 8%-17%], respectively; P < .001). Patients were treated outside device instructions for use regarding proximal neck: 16.7% in the Endurant and 17.3% in the Excluder group (P = .720). The 7-year primary clinical success was 54.7% for the Endurant and 58.1% for the Excluder groups (P = .53). Freedom from neck-related events at 7 years was 76.7% for the Endurant and 78.8% for Excluder group (P = .94). The Endurant stent graft (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-5.8; P = .009) was an independent predictor of significant renal function decline. Neck dilatation was greater in Endurant-implanted patients (13% [95% CI, 2%-22%] vs 4% [95% CI, 0%-10%]; P < .001). Overall survival at 7 years was 61.4% in the Endurant and 50.3% (n = 50; standard error, 0.047) in the Excluder group (P = .39).ConclusionsThis study reveals that durable and sustainable results can be obtained with either of these late generation devices. This finding suggests that careful planning and a tailored device selection taking into account the patient's anatomy are more relevant determinants than the graft model itself to obtain clinical success. The Endurant endoprosthesis seems to be associated with a higher rate of neck dilatation and faster decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to determine the clinical relevance of these findings.     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复与开放手术疗效比较

目的 比较腹主动脉瘤开放手术和腔内治疗的效果.方法 对2002年1月至2007年7月收治的223例分别行开放手术和腔内修复的腹主动脉瘤患者进行网顾性分析.手术组141例,男性118例,女性23例;腔内治疗组82例,男性66例,女性16例.对手术相关情况、围手术期并发症发生率、病死率、随访中并发症发生率等进行对比分析.结果 腔内修复组手术时间、术中出血量、输血量均少于开放手术组(P<0.01),围手术期并发症两组无显著差异(P>0.05),SF-36量表评估显示术后6个月开放手术组优于腔内治疗组,术后2年生存率两组无明显差异(P>0.05),但腔内修复组并发症发生率高于开放手术组(P<0.01).住院费用腔内修复组明显高于开放手术组(P<0.01).结论 腹主动脉瘤腔内修复具有手术时间短、微创的特点,但具有较高的远期并发症,开放手术组6个月健康生存质量优于腔内修复组.     

Long-term durability of multibranched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal and pararenal aortic aneurysms

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the durability of multibranched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) and pararenal aortic aneurysms by examining the rates of late-occurring (beyond 30 days) complications.

Trends of 30-day mortality and morbidities in endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm during the last decade

Objective

Significant research efforts have been made to improve the safety and efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in treating abdominal aortic aneurysm. This study aimed to examine the trends of perioperative outcomes of EVAR in the recent decade using a national validated database.

Two-year evaluation of fenestrated and parallel branch endografts for the treatment of juxtarenal,suprarenal, and thoracoabdominal aneurysms at a single institution

ObjectiveDespite numerous recent pivotal and small-scale trials, real-world endovascular management of juxtarenal aneurysms (JRA), suprarenal aneurysms (SRA), and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) remains challenging without consensus best practices. This study evaluated the mortality, graft patency, renal function, complication, and reintervention rates for fenestrated and parallel endografts in complex aortic aneurysms repairs.MethodsThis retrospective review of consecutive included patients with JRA, SRA, or TAAA who underwent complex endovascular repair from August 2014 to March 2017 at one high-volume institution. Treatment modality was a single surgeon decision based on patients anatomy and the urgency of the repair. Patient demographics, hospital course, and follow-up visits inclusive of imaging were analyzed. Ruptured aneurysms were excluded. Survival rates and outcomes were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests.ResultsSeventy complex endovascular aortic repairs were performed; 38 patients with TAAA were treated with snorkel/sandwich parallel endografts (21 celiac, 28 superior mesenteric arteries, 58 renal arteries) and 32 patients with JRA/SRA were treated by fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) with 94 total fenestrations (2 celiac, 30 SMA, 62 renal). The mean patient age was 74.8 ± 10.0 years. Sixty percent were male, and the mean aortic aneurysm diameter was 6.0 ± 1.4 cm. Perioperative mortality was 3.1% (1/32) for FEVAR compared with 2.6% (1/38) for parallel endografts (P = .9). All-cause reintervention rates were 15.6% in FEVAR (5/32) vs 23.6% with parallel endografts (9/38; P = .4). Branch reintervention rates per each branch endograft were 4.3% for FEVAR (4/94; 2 renal stent occlusions, 1 colonic ischemia without technical issue found on reintervention, 1 perinephric hematoma) vs 3.7% for parallel endografts (4/107; 2 renal and 1 celiac stent thromboses, and 1 renal stent kink; P = .41). The endograft branch thrombosis rate was 2.1% in FEVAR (2/94) vs 2.7% in parallel endografts (3/109; P = .77). Reinterventions owing to endoleaks were performed in five patients (2 type I, 2 type III, and 1 gutter endoleak; 13.1%) with parallel grafts vs no endoleak reinterventions in FEVAR. The overall survival and freedom from aneurysm-related mortality at 24 months was 78% and 96.9% in FEVAR vs 73% and 93.4% for parallel endografts (P = .8 and P = .6). The median follow-up was 12 months (range, 1-32 months).ConclusionsParallel and fenestrated endografts have acceptable and comparable mortality and patency rates in endovascular treatment of JRA, SRA, and TAAA. This study reaffirms that parallel endografts are a safe and viable alternative to fenestrated devices for complex aortic aneurysmal disease despite often treating more urgent patients and more complicated anatomy unable to be treated with FEVAR.     

Patients with large neck diameter have a higher risk of type IA endoleaks and aneurysm rupture after standard endovascular aneurysm repair

Objective

Standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the most common treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). EVAR has been increasingly used in patients with hostile neck features. This study investigated the outcomes of EVAR in patients with neck diameters ≥30 mm in the prospectively maintained Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global Postmarket Registry (ENGAGE).

高外科风险腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术的近远期结果

目的 探讨高外科风险腹主动脉瘤患者接受腔内修复术治疗的近远期结果.方法 1997年7月至2011年7月,120例因肾下腹主动脉瘤行腔内修复术治疗的高外科风险患者纳入本研究.本组患者男性96例,女性24例;年龄52～95岁,平均74岁.平均动脉瘤直径(57±8)mm.术后1、3、6、12个月及此后每年进行CT血管造影或B超随访.主要研究内容是手术病死率及远期生存率,次要研究内容是二次手术率、动脉瘤体术后的变化以及支架的通畅率.结果 全身麻醉83例,局部麻醉37例.术后Ⅰ型内漏5例,Ⅱ型内漏25例,Ⅲ型内漏1例,技术成功率95％.手术病死率2.5％.随访6～144个月,平均(36±3)个月.术后1年生存率为92％,3年生存率为75％,5年生存率为43％.术后3年支架的一、二期通畅率分别为97％和100％.5年二次手术率为10％ (12/120),手术原因为:7例内漏,2例支架断裂,2例支架移位,1例支架内血栓形成.结论 高外科风险腹主动脉瘤患者接受腔内修复术治疗的近远期结果满意,证实该技术适用于这类人群.     

腔内人造血管移植术治疗腹主动脉瘤

目的 评价腔内人造血管移植术治疗腹主动脉瘤早期临床疗效。方法 总结对14例腹主动脉瘤患者采用经腹股沟切口腹主动脉瘤腔内人造管移植术的经验。结果 12例选用分叉型腔内人造血管,2例选用直型腔内人造人管,术后即刻DSA造影显示动脉瘤消失,近远端人造血管与宿主动脉结合处均未见渗漏,11例患者术后生命体征平稳,1例术后24h出现小面积急性心肌梗塞,经溶栓和抗凝治疗后缓解,术后死亡2例,技术成功率85.7%。12例患者术后1周随访螺旋CT,其中有4例术后3个月、1例术后12个月再次做螺旋CT,显示人造血管无移位,2例有渗漏,但动脉瘤腔无增大。结论 腔内人造血管移植术是一种创伤小、恢复快的治疗腹主动脉瘤新方法,但远期疗效有待随访。