覆膜支架腔内隔绝和开腹手术治疗腹主动脉瘤破裂疗效比较

目的比较开腹手术和腔内隔绝术治疗腹主动脉瘤破裂的手术效果。方法 2000年3月-2011年7月,收治48例腹主动脉瘤破裂患者,其中40例行腹动脉瘤切除、人工血管移植术治疗(开腹组),8例行覆膜支架腔内隔绝术治疗(腔内隔绝组)。两组患者性别、年龄、瘤颈长度≤2 cm构成比、瘤颈成角≥60°构成比、髂外动脉严重扭曲构成比、术前收缩压、术前合并症组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。术后对两组患者输血量、手术时间、重症监护时间、术后并发症、二期手术率、术后24 h内死亡率和术后30 d内死亡率进行比较。结果两组术后24 h死亡率、术后30 d死亡率以及非移植物相关并发症发生率比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);但组间手术时间、输血量、重症监护时间、二期手术率及移植物相关并发症发生率比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论腔内隔绝术对解剖条件良好的腹主动脉瘤破裂患者是一种可行的手术方式,在输血量、手术时间、重症监护时间方面与传统开腹手术相比具有明显优势。     

Population-based long-term outcomes of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveExisting data regarding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) are conflicting in their findings. The purpose of this paper was to determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR vs open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of rAAA.MethodsA population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients 40 years or more that underwent OSR or EVAR of rAAA in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016 was conducted. Administrative data from the province of Ontario was used as the data source. The propensity for repair approach was calculated using a logistic regression model including all covariates and used for inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted using the weighted cohort to determine the survival and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival of EVAR relative to OSR for rAAA up to 10 years after repair.ResultsA total of 2692 rAAA (261 EVAR [10%] and 2431 OSR [90%]) repairs were recorded from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016. Mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), with a maximum follow-up of 14.0 years. OSR patients were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (SD, 4.0 years) and maximum of 14.0 years, and EVAR patients were followed for a mean of 2.7 years (SD, 2.7 years) and a maximum of 11.4 years. Median survival was 2.7 years overall, and 2.5 and 3.7 years for OSR and EVAR patients, respectively. There were no significant baseline differences between EVAR and OSR patients after inverse probability of treatment weighting. EVAR patients were at lower hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.65; P < .01), and MACE (hazard ratio, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66; P < .01) within 30 days of repair. There were no statistically significant differences between EVAR and OSR in the hazard for all-cause mortality or MACE from 30 days to 5 years, and 5 to 10 years. Despite this, the upfront mortality and MACE benefits of EVAR persisted for more than 4.5 years after repair.ConclusionsThis population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated lower hazards for all-cause mortality and MACE within 30 days of operation in favor of EVAR, but no differences in the mid- or longer-term results. More work is needed to understand and improve the long-term outcomes of ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and ruptured open surgical repair.     

腔内修复术与开放手术治疗腹主动脉瘤的对比分析

目的 对比分析传统开放手术与血管腔内修复术治疗腹主动脉瘤的疗效.方法 回顾性分析我科2009年至2012年经外科治疗的43例肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料,行腔内治疗患者25例,行传统手术的18例,对比分析两组患者术前、术中情况,术后并发症及6个月内死亡情况.结果 两组患者在手术时间、术中失血及输血量方面,两组差异均有统计学意义（t值分别为8.377,5.124,5.043,P均＜0.001）;术后30d内并发症比较,差异有统计学意义（X2=0.09,P＜0.05）;术后6个月内死亡率比较,差异无统计学意义（x2=4.21,P＞0.05）.结论 血管腔内修复术比传统手术创伤小,手术时间短,术中失血及输血量少,术后短期并发症发生率低,但中远期死亡率无明显差别.     

Late open conversions after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair in an urgent setting

Objectives

We report a multicenter experience of urgent late open conversion (LOC), with the goal of identifying the mode of presentation, technical aspects, and outcomes of this cohort of patients.

高风险患者腹主动脉瘤手术与腔内治疗效果的比较

目的 比较高风险患者腹主动脉瘤(abdominal aortic aneurysm,AAA)手术治疗(opensurgical repair,OSR)与腔内治疗(endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR)的效果,探讨高风险患者AAA治疗方式的选择.方法 利用(customized probability index,CPI)危险评分方法[1]筛选出我院1998年至2008年高风险患者55例,比较OSR组(20例)与EVAR组(35例)围手术期及术后近期结果.结果 OSR组随访率100%,平均随访6年3个月.EVAR组随访率94%,平均随访5年10个月.(1)手术时间高风险患者EVAR组(3.1±0.6)h短于OSR组[(4.9±0.9)h(P<0.05)];(2)EVAR组术中出血、ICU时间和住院时间均短于OSR组(P<0.01);(3)围手术期死亡率EVAR组(2.86%)明显低于OSR组(15.00%);(4)术后并发症发生率EVAR组(17%)明显低于OSR组(40%);(5)EVAR组术后并发症主要为内漏(8.57%);(6)OSR组并发症主要为心脏相关性疾病(25%).结论 EVAR对于高风险患者AAA的治疗可以更少的导致围手术期心血管事件的发生,降低围手术期的死亡率和并发症发生率.CPI可以相对准确评估血管手术围手术期死亡率和并发症的发生率,可用于指导围手术期的治疗策略.     

腹主动脉瘤血管腔内治疗的体会

目的 观察腹主动脉瘤血管腔内治疗的近期疗效.方法 对12例肾下型腹主动脉瘤进行分析.结果 术中出血平均245 mL,住院时间平均8.6 d,术后禁食时间平均1.5 d.白细胞、血红蛋白和血小板以及肾功能、肝功能均在正常范围;PT和APTT术后延长,1周内恢复正常.并发症包括:肺部感染1例、腹胀2例,经保守治疗好转;内漏1例,3个月后自然消失.结论 腹主动脉瘤血管腔内治疗具有安全、微创及对人体内环境干扰小的优点.     

超声诊断腹主动脉瘤腔内隔绝术后内漏

目前主要采用腹主动脉瘤腔内隔绝术（EVAR）治疗腹主动脉瘤,术后内漏发生率较高;监测EVAR术后有无内漏发生是随访的主要目的。超声检查具有操作方便、价格低廉、无电离辐射等优点,检出内漏的敏感度和特异度均较高。本文围绕超声诊断EVAR术后内漏进展进行综述。     

Fascial suture technique versus open femoral access for thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Background

Fascial suture technique (FST) has proved to be a safe and effective access closure technique after endovascular repair of the abdominal aorta. FST has not yet been investigated for closure of large-bore access after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The aim of this study was to compare FST with open femoral access in terms of access safety, hemostasis efficacy, and reintervention rate after TEVAR.

Increasing use of open conversion for late complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

ObjectiveOpen procedures are often required for late complications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Our aim was to describe the indications for open interventions and their postoperative outcomes and to specifically examine our experience with limited conversions in which problem endoleaks are targeted without endograft explantation.MethodsWe reviewed patients from 2002 to 2017 who underwent any surgical abdominal aortic operation after a previous EVAR. Baseline characteristics, preoperative imaging, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes were reviewed. The primary end point was 30-day mortality.ResultsThere were 102 patients who underwent open conversion 3.8 ± 3.1 years after EVAR. The numbers increased significantly in recent years, with 18 cases performed in 2016; 48.5% of patients had undergone 1.9 ± 1.0 prior endovascular interventions. The indication for surgical conversion was an endoleak in 85 patients and infection in 15. One patient had a limb occlusion and another a proximal aneurysm. The 30-day mortality was 6.2% in 65 patients treated electively for endoleak but higher in 20 ruptures (40.0%) and 15 infections (40.0%). In a multivariate logistic regression model, independent predictors of 30-day mortality were rupture (odds ratio [OR], 6.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-25.60; P = .005), endograft infection (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 1.99-36.20; P = .004), and use of a supraceliac clamp (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.47-15.66; P = .009). Transient acute kidney injury (12.8%) and prolonged intubation (11.8%) were the most common postoperative complications. In 65 patients treated for endoleak without rupture, 37 underwent endograft explantation, whereas 28 had a graft-preserving intervention (branch vessel ligation for type II endoleak in 26, external banding of the aneurysm neck for type IA endoleak in 8). Mortality was 8.1% when the endograft was explanted and 3.6% when it was not (P = .63). During 3.0 ± 3.5 years of follow-up, there was one reintervention after endograft explantation (for rupture secondary to type IB endoleak) and two reinterventions after graft preservation (for a new type IA endoleak and a new type II endoleak). Survival was 87.4% at 1 year and 70.9% at 5 years.ConclusionsOpen conversion is playing an increasing role in the management of late EVAR complications. Endoleaks treated electively by open conversion are reasonably safe and show good midterm durability, even with graft-preserving interventions that avoid endograft explantation.     

腹主动脉瘤手术的麻醉

腹主动脉瘤(AAA)多发生于55岁以上男性,是一种严重的血管外科疾病。调查显示[1]男性和女性发病率分别为8.9%和2.2%,破裂后死亡率高达50%~80%,手术是惟一有效的治疗手段。由于AAA患者常合并心、脑、肾、肺等多种疾病,加之手术复杂、创伤较大,麻醉风险大,易出现各种意外。1 AAA相     

Factors associated with postoperative renal dysfunction and the subsequent impact on survival after open juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BackgroundRenal dysfunction is a well-described complication of open juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, but the associated risk factors and corresponding impact on survival are not well described.MethodsWe identified all patients not on hemodialysis undergoing open repair of nonruptured juxtarenal aneurysms in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2017. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to determine factors associated with in-hospital postoperative renal dysfunction, including acute kidney injury (AKI, defined as serum creatinine concentration increase >0.5 mg/dL) and new renal replacement therapy (RRT), as well as the association between postoperative renal function and perioperative mortality. Cox regression was used to determine the association between postoperative renal complications and long-term survival.ResultsWe identified 2635 open juxtarenal repairs, of which 621 (24%) were complicated by AKI. The majority of these (20% of the overall cohort) were AKI alone, but 2.2% required temporary RRT and an additional 1.7% were permanently dialysis dependent. Factors independently associated with postoperative renal dysfunction included renal-visceral ischemia time (per minute: odds ratio [OR], 1.01 [1.01-1.02]; P < .001), clamp site (above both renal arteries: OR, 1.4 [1.1-1.8; P = .02]; supraceliac: OR, 1.7 [1.1-2.5; P = .01]), statin use (OR, 1.5 [1.1-2.0]; P = .01), male sex (OR, 1.7 [1.2-2.2]; P = .002), and preoperative renal function (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 45-60 mL/min/1.73 m²: OR, 1.8 [1.3-2.5; P < .001]; GFR of 30-45 mL/min/1.73 m²: OR, 1.9 [1.2-2.8; P = .003]; GFR of <30 mL/min/1.73 m²: OR, 6.2 [3.1-12.2; P < .001]). When renal-visceral ischemia time was categorized, there was no difference in risk of postoperative renal dysfunction until >25 minutes, but risk increased stepwise thereafter (25-39 minutes: OR, 1.6 [1.2-2.1; P = .004]; 40+ minutes: OR, 2.6 [1.9-3.5; P < .001]). Neither mannitol nor the use of cold renal perfusion was associated with renal complications or mortality in the overall cohort, but cold renal perfusion was associated with lower risk of AKI when clamp times exceeded 25 minutes (OR, 0.4 [0.2-0.97]; P = .041). Postoperative renal dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted perioperative mortality (AKI: OR, 2.6 [1.4-5.0; P < .01]; RRT: OR, 10.5 [4.0-27.6; P < .001]) and significantly higher risk of long-term mortality (AKI: hazard ratio, 1.5 [1.0-2.1; P = .049]; RRT: hazard ratio, 5.8 [3.2-10.3; P < .001]).ConclusionsPostoperative renal dysfunction, even a mild elevation in creatinine concentration, is associated with higher perioperative and long-term mortality. Although the routine use of mannitol and cold renal perfusion was not associated with postoperative renal dysfunction after open juxtarenal repair, cold renal perfusion was associated with lower risk of AKI if clamp times exceeded 25 minutes.     

EndoSuture aneurysm repair versus fenestrated aneurysm repair in patients with short neck abdominal aortic aneurysm

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare midterm results of EndoAnchors in EndoSuture aneurysm repair (ESAR) versus fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) in short neck abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).MethodsAll patients who underwent an ESAR procedure for a short neck AAA at our center between September 2017 and May 2020 were considered for analysis. To form the control group, preoperative computed tomography angiography of patients who underwent FEVAR for juxtarenal AAA between April 2012 and May 2020 were reviewed and patients who met short neck criteria selected. A propensity-matched score on neck length and neck diameter was calculated, resulting in 18 matched pairs. AAA shrinkage, type Ia endoleaks (EL), AAA-related reinterventions, and AAA-related deaths were compared.ResultsThe median AAA diameter was 54 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 52-61 mm) versus 58 mm (IQR, 53-63 mm) with a median neck length of 8 mm (IQR, 6-12 mm) vs 10 mm (IQR, 6-13 mm) in ESAR and FEVAR patients, respectively. Technical success was 100% in both groups. Procedural success was 94% in the ESAR group versus 100% in the FEVAR group. The median procedure duration was 138 mm (IQR, 113-182 mm) vs 240 mm (IQR, 199-293 mm) ( P < .001) and the median length of stay was 2 days (IQR, 2-3 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 6-7 days) (P < .001) in ESAR and FEVAR patients, respectively. No major hospital complications were observed in ESAR patients compared with two in FEVAR patients (11%) with one transient acute kidney injury and one transient paraplegia. The median follow-up was 23 months (IQR, 19-33 months) vs 36 months (IQR, 22-57 months) with 67% versus 61% AAA shrinkage in the ESAR and FEVAR groups, respectively (P = .73). No type Ia EL, proximal neck-related reinterventions, or AAA-related deaths were observed in either group. No AAA-related reintervention was observed in the ESAR group versus three reinterventions in the FEVAR group (P = .23).ConclusionsESAR seems to be a safe technique with no major postoperative complications or reinterventions observed during follow-up. It seems to offer similar midterm results as FEVAR in terms of type Ia EL, aneurysm shrinkage, and aneurysm-related mortality. ESAR seems to be a good off-the-shelf alternative to FEVAR in case of technical constraints.     

Secondary interventions after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND: One adverse outcome of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (EVAR) is a significantly increased incidence of secondary interventions (SIs) required compared with traditional open aortic repair. We present a consecutive series of EVARs using a single endograft to identify the incidence and types of SIs performed. METHODS: From February 1, 2000, to January 31, 2005, we repaired 136 AAAs with the Zenith (Cook, Bloomington, Indiana) endograft. All patients met the same strict anatomic inclusion and exclusion criteria. Follow-up lasted from 1.5 to 61 months (median 36). The indications for SI group A were procedural and technical errors, for group B were aortic morphology, and for group C were device failures. RESULTS: Twenty-one SIs were required in 17 of 136 patients (12.5%). Three patients required multiple interventions. Nine patients were in group A, four were in group B, and six were in group C. All but 4 patients required SIs for late (>30 days) complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is a viable alternative to open aortic repair, EVAR is associated with a significantly higher rate of SIs. To maintain the efficacy of EVAR, patients must be followed-up in a vigilant graft surveillance protocol for life.     

Endovascular conversion into aorto-uniiliac configuration of acute failed endovascular aneurysm repair is associated with better one-year survival rates compared to open conversion

Background

Open conversions (OC) due to failed endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) are technically demanding because of preexisting prostheses and advanced aortic disease. This study evaluates the feasibility and outcomes of aorto-uniiliac endografting (AUI) as an alternative treatment option in acute failed EVAR.

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a 7 year experience at the Launceston General Hospital

BACKGROUND: To review our 7 year experience of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) and to compare this to open repair (OR) during the same time period. METHODS: One hundred and one EVR and 65 OR patients were studied. Parameters analysed included patient and procedure details, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital admission time, and morbidity and mortality with particular emphasis on procedure-related problems. RESULTS: Endovascular grafts were deployed with successful abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) exclusion in 100 patients. Primary technical success was achieved in 84%, clinical success in 86% and secondary success in 90% of cases. Complications occurred in 63% and 88% of EVR and OR patients, respectively. Early device-related complications occurred in 40 EVR patients (40%); 24 (60%) were corrected immediately by further stenting. Late device-related complications occurred in 15 EVR patients (15%); four (27%) required additional stenting. Most of the complications in the OR group were systemic (89%) resulting in longer ICU and hospital stays (median 48 vs 17 h and 13 vs 4 days for OR and EVR, respectively). Death within 30 days of the procedure occurred in three EVR patients. There was no perioperative mortality in the OR group. CONCLUSION: Endovascular AAA repair can be undertaken successfully in a district general hospital. The majority of local and device-related complications can be corrected immediately, while those persisting beyond the initial procedure usually resolve spontaneously. EVR offers a minimally invasive approach to a problem that in the past has involved major surgery.