腔内修复与开放手术治疗腹主动脉瘤的疗效比较

目的 比较腹主动脉瘤开放手术和腔内治疗的效果.方法 对223例分别行开放手术和腔内修复的腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,对手术相关情况、围手术期及随访中并发症发生率、生存率、生存质量以及与住院相关的费用进行了对比分析.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);两组围手术期并发症比较无显著差异(P>0.05);SF-36量表评估显示术后6个月开放手术组生活质量优于腔内治疗组,两组术后2年生存率比较无显著差异(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;开放手术组术后6个月健康生存质量优于腔内修复组.     

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.     

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。     

Activated coagulation during open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to determine activation of coagulation in patients undergoing open and endovascular infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: In a prospective, comparative study, 30 consecutive patients undergoing open repair (n = 15) or EVAR (n = 15) were investigated. Blood samples to determine fibrinopeptide A, fibrin monomer, thrombin-antithrombin complex, and D-dimer were taken up to 5 days postoperatively. Routine hematologic and hematochemical parameters as well as clinical data were collected. RESULTS: Both groups showed comparable demographic variables. Operating time was longer in open repair (249 +/- 77 minutes vs 186 +/- 69 minutes, P < .05). Perioperatively elevated markers of coagulation were measured in both groups. Fibrinopeptide A levels did not differ significantly between the groups (P = .55). The levels of fibrin monomer and thrombin-antithrombin complex were significantly higher in patients undergoing EVAR (P < .0001), reflecting increased thrombin activity and thrombin formation compared with open surgery. The D-dimer level did not differ significantly between the groups. These results were also valid after correction for hemodilution. CONCLUSION: These data suggest increased procoagulant activity in EVAR compared with open surgery. A procoagulant state may favor possible morbidity derived from micro- and macrovascular thrombosis, such as in myocardial infarction, multiple organ dysfunction, venous thrombosis and thromboembolism, or disseminated intravascular coagulation.     

Simultaneous endovascular exclusion of thoracic aortic aneurysm with open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of aneurysms at multiple sites within the aorta is problematic. METHODS: Between March 2002 and June 2003 in the Department of General, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Medical University of Warsaw six patients with coexisting abdominal and descending thoracic aortic aneurysms underwent simultaneous open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and endoluminal thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) repair. The indication for a combined procedure was a diagnosed descending TAA and AAA with no significant risk factors for open aortic surgery or technical contraindications for endovascular treatment of TAA. RESULTS: One patient died in the peri-operative period while the other five patients all recovered well after surgery and were discharged with both aneurysms excluded. CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of TAA combined with a simultaneous open AAA repair is an efficient and relatively safe treatment modality in patients with TAA and AAA disqualified from endovascular repair. The fact that thoracotomy is not a necessity significantly lowers the complication rate in these 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.     

Hospital costs for endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND: To evaluate hospital costs and reimbursement for open (OAAA) and endovascular (EVAAA) repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. STUDY DESIGN: Review of all patients who underwent OAAA or EVAAA in two teaching hospitals during the period January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000, was completed for the following: demographics, Diagnosis Related Group (DRG), resource use, length of stay, hospital costs, and reimbursement data. RESULTS: There were 130 abdominal aortic aneurysm procedures performed. Fifty-seven (44%) OAAA were completed; EVAAA was attempted in 73 (56%). Seventy EVAAA patients (96%) had endografts placed, and three (4%) required conversion to open repair. Significant differences were noted between OAAA and EVAAA in operative time (311.7 +/- 107.5 minutes versus 263.4 +/- 110.8 minutes, respectively, p = 0.02), ICU admission and length of stay (100%, 5.0 +/- 6.1 days versus 29%, 1.4 +/- 7.1 days, respectively, p = 0.003), and hospital length of stay (12.6 +/- 14.8 days versus 4.9 +/- 13.4 days, respectively, p = 0.002). Total costs were $17,539.00 for EVAAA and $9,042.00 for OAAA. EVAAA was profitable ($3,072.00) for Medicare DRG 110 classification, but significant loss occurred with DRG 111 ($5,065.00). Contract renegotiation with private payers (to cover graft costs) was necessary to avoid substantial per- patient loss ($12,108.00). Overall net per-patient profit for EVAAA was $737.00. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is significantly more expensive than open repair, with the major portion attributed to graft cost. Although ICU use and total length of stay decreased with EVAAA, overall costs were not substantially reduced. Hospitals must develop new financial strategies and improve the efficiency of their infrastructures in order to offer EVAAA.     

Perioperative and long-term outcomes after open conversion of endovascular aneurysm repair versus primary open aortic repair

BackgroundThe use of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has superseded that of open aneurysm repair (OAR) as the procedure of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. However, significant rates of late reintervention and aneurysm rupture have been reported after EVAR, resulting in the need for conversion to OAR (C-OAR). To assess the relative effects of C-OAR on patients, we compared the outcomes of these patients to those of patients who had undergone P-OAR.MethodsThe data from all patients who had undergone C-OAR and P-OAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network database from 2003 to 2018 were queried. Multivariable logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to assess the perioperative long-term outcomes.ResultsA total of 4763 patients were included (91.4%, P-OAR; 8.6%, C-OAR). C-OAR was associated with a significant increase in the odds of perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.7; P = .027) and renal complications (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2; P = .004) vs P-OAR. At 5 years, conversion was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001), aneurysmal rupture (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .007), and reintervention (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.05-1.97; P = .022) compared with P-OAR. These results also persisted at 10 years, with conversion associated with a higher risk of mortality (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001), rupture (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8; P = .018), and reintervention (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = .010).ConclusionsThe results from the present study have demonstrated that C-OAR is associated with a significantly higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with P-OAR. We found a significant increase in mortality, aneurysm rupture, and reintervention at 5 and 10 years of follow-up.     

Impact of endovascular repair on open aortic aneurysm surgical training.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of an endovascular stent-graft program on vascular training in open aortic aneurysm surgery. METHODS: The institutional and vascular surgery fellow experience in aortic aneurysm repair during a 6-year period was reviewed. The 3-year period before introduction of endovascular repair was compared with the 3-year period after introduction of endovascular repair. All patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs were entered prospectively into a vascular registry and retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the changing patterns in aortic aneurysm treatment and surgical training. RESULTS: Between July 1994 and June 2000, a total of 588 patients with AAA or thoracoabdominal aneurysms were treated at Stanford University Medical Center. There were 296 (50%) open infrarenal AAA repairs, 87 (15%) suprarenal AAA repairs, 47 (8%) thoracoabdominal aneurysm repairs, and 153 (26%) endovascular stent-grafts. The total number of aneurysms repaired per year by vascular fellows before the endovascular program was 71.3 +/- 4.9 (range, 68-77) and increased to 124.7 +/- 35.6 (range, 91-162) after introduction of endovascular repair (P <.05). This increase was primarily caused by the addition of endovascular stent-graft repairs by vascular fellows (51.0 +/- 29.0/year [range, 23-81]). There was no change in the number of open infrarenal aortic aneurysm repairs per year, 53.0 +/- 6.6 (range, 48-56) before endovascular repair versus 47.0 +/- 1.7 (range, 46-49) after (P = not significant). There was a significant increase in the number of suprarenal AAA repairs per year by vascular fellows, 10.0 +/- 1.0 (range, 9-11) before endovascular repair compared with 19.0 +/- 6.5 (range, 13-26) after (P <.05). There was no change in the number of thoracoabdominal aneurysm repairs per year between the two groups, 8.0 +/- 3.0 (range, 4-11) before endovascular repair compared with 7.6 +/- 2.3 (range, 5-9) after. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of an endovascular aneurysm stent-graft program significantly increased the total number of aneurysms treated. Although the number of open aneurysm repairs has remained the same, the complexity of the open aneurysm experience has increased significantly for vascular fellows in training.