烟囱技术在主动脉扩张性疾病腔内修复中的应用

腔内微创修复技术是目前主动脉扩张性疾病的重要治疗方法,包括腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术（Endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR）和胸主动脉病变腔内修复术（Thoracic endovascular aortic repair,TEVAR）两类主要方式。     

腔内修复术在主动脉疾病的治疗应用进展

主动脉腔内修复术(endovascular aortic repair,EVAR)是近20年发展最快的技术之一,具有微创、并发症少、恢复快等优点,已经在主动脉疾病治疗中获得良好的效果。EVAR已经实现了从处理简单病变到治疗复杂的破裂腹主动脉瘤(rupture abdominal aortic aneurysm,rAAA)、弓部动脉瘤甚至Stanford A型主动脉夹层(thoracic stanford type A aortic dissection,TAAD)的飞跃。但在处理复杂的主动脉疾病时,单纯EVAR会因为病变部位、累及范围、局部解剖条件、介入器械使用指征等诸多因素的限制而     

降主动脉扩张病变腔内修复的初步探讨

目的探讨降主动脉扩张性疾病腔内修复术的有效性和安全性。方法 2009年5月～2011年12月,对20例降主动脉扩张性疾病行腔内修复手术。术前全部应用CTA确诊,其中Stanford B型夹层15例,假性动脉瘤4例,降主动脉减速伤1例。均在全麻下行股动脉切开作为覆膜支架置放入路。结果全组均一次支架释放成功,无手术死亡。修复后造影显示降主动脉夹层破口或假性动脉瘤均被即刻封闭,真腔均较术前扩大。2例主动脉腹腔分支段破口遗留假腔,假腔直径均<10 mm,未给予处理。14例术后6个月行CTA检查,无支架移位、破裂、断裂、内漏发生,第一破口所致假腔均无活动血流。结论腔内修复治疗降主动脉扩张性疾病安全,有效。     

3D导航技术在主动脉腔内修复术中的应用

目的评价3D导航及术中平板CT在主动脉腔内修复术中应用的可行性及技术优势。方法本研究为回顾性单中心研究。2016年11月～2018年12月,38例主动脉疾病病人在3D导航技术及术中平板CT辅助下完成胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)及腹主动脉腔内修复术(EVAR),16例病人因近端锚定区不足行分支血管重建。同期收治40例病人完成常规主动脉腔内修复术,记录术中及术后随访情况,进行对比分析。结果在主动脉腔内修复手术中,与常规DSA二维图像参考比较,术中应用3D导航和术中CT在减少造影剂量(TEVAR 60.31 ml vs 73.34 ml,P=0.032;EVAR 83.43 ml vs 94.83 ml,P=0.013),术中放射剂量(TEVAR 293.04 mGy vs 385.71 mGy,P=0.002;EVAR 431.84 mGy vs 584.51 mGy,P=0.043),造影次数(TEVAR 2.36 vs 3.56 P=0.016;EVAR 3.43 vs 4.01,P=0.029),手术时长(TEVAR 64.09 min vs 71.42 min P=0.001;EVAR 142.14 min vs 153.39 min P=0.057)的同时,降低了术后主动脉相关再干预风险(2.63%vs 10%P=0.042),满足了临床介入诊疗过程中对解剖位置的精确要求及术中治疗效果的即时评估。结论 3D导航技术及术中平板CT在复杂主动脉腔内治疗当中具有优势,提高了术中定位的精准度,可减少术中造影剂用量、操作时间及术中造影次数,降低主动脉相关再干预风险和并发症的发生率。     

覆膜支架主动脉腔内修复术在Stanford B型主动脉夹层中的应用

目的观察覆膜支架主动脉腔内修复术（TEVAR）对Stanford B型主动脉夹层和降主动脉瘤的治疗效果。方法回顾性分析华西医院2013年3～6月采用TEVAR治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层和降主动脉瘤患者20例的临床资料,其中男19例,女1例;年龄41～76（58．3±10．2）岁,分析其疗效。结果20例患者中,治愈18例,自动出院1例,术后死亡1例。随访满3个月者16例,随访率88．9％。全部随访患者支架范同内真腔管径有所恢复,假腔或瘤腔内血栓形成。结论TEVAR为Stanford B型主动脉瘤提供了一个新的选择,特别是为高龄和合并严重疾病的患者提供了新的治疗手段,优势明显,值得临床应用。     

血管内超声在复杂Stanford B型主动脉夹层腔内修复术中的应用

目的 评估血管内超声(intravascular ultrasound,IVUS)在复杂Stanford B型主动脉夹层(aortic dissection,AD)胸主动脉腔内修复术(thoracic endovascular aortic repair,TEVAR)的应用价值.方法 回顾性分析2017年10月 ～20...     

升主动脉及主动脉弓部病变的腔内技术应用

目前血管腔内修复术（endo vascular repair，EVR）在胸主动脉疾病中的应用越来越广泛，经过十多年的临床经验可以确认EVR创伤小、恢复快、疗效确切，故腔内治疗目前已呈现出取代传统开放性手术成为主动脉疾病治疗首选的趋势，本篇综述回顾了从EVR开始应用于胸主动脉疾病到目前的主要文献，较详细地阐述了目前EVR泊疗升主动脉及弓部病变的各种方法。     

Hybrid技术在复杂主动脉病变治疗中的应用

目的:探讨杂交技术在复杂主动脉病变应用。方法:回顾性分析2007年8月—2012年8月采用Hybrid技术治疗的12例复杂主动脉病变患者的临床资料,其中主动脉夹层9例,胸腹主动脉瘤3例,手术方式主要为各种人工血管旁路术联合覆膜支架腔内修复术。结果:所有患者均取得技术成功。1例主动脉夹层患者术后出现支架近心端1型内漏,未予处理,1例主动脉夹层患者围手术期死于严重纵膈内感染,余患者术后康复良好。8例患者随访3个月至2年,均存活良好,未发现内漏及其他并发症。结论:Hybrid技术是治疗复杂主动脉病变一种合理的可选择方案。     

主动脉病变腔内修复术中导入动脉的外科处理

目的 探讨主动脉病变腔内修复术中对于导入动脉的外科处理方式。方法 回顾性分析南方医科大学南方医院血管外科2001年1月至2007年12月63例主动脉腔内修复术病人的临床资料,其中主动脉夹层33例,腹主动脉瘤25例,主动脉假性动脉瘤5例。结果 导入动脉分别选用股总动脉57例,髂外动脉6例。动脉切口单纯修补38例,动脉成形后修补16例,内膜剥除加单纯修补4例,动脉部分切除后行端端吻合4例,人工血管置换1例。62例病人获得成功,1例术中死亡。所有成功施行腔内隔绝术的病人中,1例术后出现导入动脉假性动脉瘤,通过再次手术治愈;2例术后出现患侧下肢轻微缺血症状,经造影证实为吻合口狭窄,予以保守治疗治愈,其他病人未出现并发症。 结论 术前详尽的评估,术中仔细的保护,术后根据情况及时进行相应处理,可有效防治导入动脉相关的并发症。     

胸主动脉腔内修复术联合双“潜望镜”技术治疗复杂主动脉缩窄1例

目的探讨胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)联合双"潜望镜"技术治疗复杂主动脉缩窄的经验。方法行TEVAR联合双"潜望镜"技术治疗:应用TEVAR技术治疗主动脉缩窄,同时应用双"潜望镜"技术保留双侧锁骨下动脉血供。结果手术成功,围手术期未出现并发症,术后3个月、6个月随访CT血管造影显示远端锚定区处没有分支支架相关的内漏,分支支架通畅,左锁骨下动脉有少许Ⅱ型内漏。结论 TEVAR联合双"潜望镜"技术治疗复杂主动脉缩窄的短期随访结果是安全有效的,但中远期疗效仍需进一步的随访观察。     

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。     

Fenestrated endovascular repair for diseases involving the aortic arch

ObjectiveExtension of aortic disease to the aortic arch is common, frequently requiring cervical debranching procedures to maintain patency of supra-aortic branches. Endovascular aortic arch repair is an attractive alternative in the treatment of aortic arch disease for high-risk patients with thoracoabdominal diseases encroaching on the arch. The aim of our study was to report our experience of fenestrated endovascular repair in the aortic arch.MethodsA retrospective review of prospectively collected data involving consecutive patients in a single tertiary center treated with custom-made fenestrated endografts for the aortic arch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) was undertaken. End points included technical success, perioperative mortality and morbidity, reintervention, and late survival.ResultsBetween 2011 and 2017, there were 44 patients with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years (27 male [61%]) who were treated with fenestrated endografts for arch aneurysm (n = 11 [25%]), arch penetrating aortic ulcer (n = 6 [14%]), thoracoabdominal aneurysm with arch involvement (n = 11 [25%]), postdissection false lumen aneurysm (n = 13 [29%]), or lusorian artery aneurysm (n = 3 [7%]). The proximal landing zone was at Ishimaru zone 0 in 12 cases (27%), zone 1 in 27 cases (62%), and zone 2 in 5 cases (11%). Nine patients (20%) underwent a unilateral carotid-subclavian bypass, two (5%) a bilateral carotid-subclavian bypass, and four (9%) a subclavian transposition. In total, of the 73 target supra-aortic vessels (average of 1.7 target vessels per patient), 37 were treated with fenestrations and 36 with scallops. The mean operation time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast material volume were 215 ± 152 minutes, 33 ± 23 minutes, and 114 ± 45 mL, respectively. Technical success was 95% (42/44). The median intensive care unit and hospital stays were 3 ± 1 days and 7 ± 6 days, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 9% (4/44; one graft displacement and stroke, one retrograde type A dissection, one access complication and stroke, and one death of unknown cause). Major stroke occurred in three (7%), minor stroke in one (2%), temporary spinal cord ischemia in three (7%), and renal injury in three (7%) patients, whereas three (7%) patients required early reintervention. With mean follow-up of 18 ± 17 months, 10 more patients required secondary interventions, most of which (90%) were planned distal intervention to complete the repair of thoracoabdominal diseases. Overall survival rates were 78% ± 7% and 72% ± 8% at postoperative years 1 and 2, respectively.ConclusionsFenestrated endograft repair of aortic arch disease is a feasible technique with a high technical success rate and acceptable rates of stroke and paraplegia. A high number of secondary interventions were needed to complete the treatment of underlying diseases.     

“烟囱”技术在胸主动脉病变中的应用

目的 探讨“烟囱”技术在缺乏锚定区的胸主动脉病变中应用的可行性和价值.方法 对2011年1月至2011年6月我科用“烟囱”技术治疗5例Debakey Ⅲ型主动脉夹层和1例Debakey Ⅲ型胸主动脉穿透性溃疡患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,探讨“烟囱”技术的适应证和实施要点.结果 6例患者在植入主动脉支架人造血管的同时分别植入“烟囱”支架于左锁骨下动脉3例,左颈总动脉3例.手术均获得成功,支架植入后数字减影血管造影显示病变完全隔绝,“烟囱”植入分支通畅,围手术期无死亡、脑梗死和肾功能不全等并发症发生.结论 “烟囱”技术拓展了胸主动脉病变腔内治疗的适应证,微创、安全、有效,远期疗效尚待随访、观察.     

Double-barrel technique for preservation of aortic arch branches during thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) may involve either planned or inadvertent coverage of aortic branch vessels when stent grafts are implanted into the aortic arch. Vital branch vessels may be preserved by surgical debranching techniques or by placement of additional stents to maintain vessel patency. We report our experience with a double-barrel stent technique used to maintain aortic arch branch vessel patency during TEVAR. Seven patients underwent TEVAR using the double-barrel technique, with placement of branch stents into the innominate (n = 3), left common carotid (n = 3), and left subclavian (n = 1) arteries alongside an aortic stent graft. Gore TAG endografts were used in all cases, and either self-expanding stents (n = 6) or balloon-expandable (n = 1) stents were utilized to maintain patency of the arch branch vessels. In three cases the double-barrel stent technique was used to restore patency of an inadvertently covered left common carotid artery. Four planned cases involved endograft deployment proximally into the ascending aorta with placement of an innominate artery stent (n = 3) and coverage of the left subclavian artery with placement of a subclavian artery stent (n = 1). TEVAR using a double-barrel stent was technically successful with maintenance of branch vessel patency and absence of type I endoleak in all seven cases. One case of zone 0 endograft placement with an innominate stent was complicated by a left hemispheric stroke that was attributed to a technical problem with the carotid-carotid bypass. On follow-up of 2-18 months, all double-barrel branch stents and aortic endografts remained patent without endoleak, migration, or loss of device integrity. The double-barrel stent technique maintains aortic branch patency and provides additional stent-graft fixation length during TEVAR to treat aneurysms involving the aortic arch. Moreover, the technique uses commercially available devices and permits complete aortic arch coverage (zone 0) without a sternotomy. Although initial outcomes are encouraging, long-term durability remains unknown.     

Perioperative differences between endovascular repair of thoracic and abdominal aortic diseases

BACKGROUND: With the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the TAG thoracic device, more thoracic pathologies are being treated using endovascular techniques. Although endovascular abdominal and thoracic aortic repairs have some apparent similarities, there are substantive anatomic, pathologic, and technical differences that could impact perioperative outcomes. The purpose of this study is to identify these differences. METHODS: During a 5-year period, 121 endovascular thoracic aortic repairs (TEVAR) and 450 abdominal aortic repairs (EVAR) were performed at a single institution. Preoperative, intraoperative, and early postoperative data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Aggregate outcome measures were compared between the two cohorts, with statistical significance achieved at P < .05. RESULTS: The mean age of patients undergoing EVAR was 72.8 +/- 8.3 compared with 68.3 +/- 13.9 for TEVAR (P = .02). More women underwent TEVAR (30.6% vs 11.1%, P < .001). Aneurysms undergoing TEVAR were larger than those for EVAR (62.0 mm vs 58.3 mm, P = .01). Intraoperatively, EVAR required 26.2 minutes of fluoroscopy compared with 22.1 minutes for TEVAR (P < .001). The amount of contrast used was higher in TEVAR (133.6 mL vs 93.6 mL, P < .001). The mean procedure times were 164 minutes for EVAR and 115 minutes for TEVAR (P < .001). Iliac conduits were required in 46 patients (10.2%) undergoing EVAR, and in 24 (19.8%) undergoing TEVAR (P = .007). The 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 2.0% for EVAR and 5.0% for TEVAR (P = NS). The median length of stay was longer for TEVAR (3 days vs 2 days, P =.034). There were 54 postoperative complications in 36 TEVAR patients (29.8%), including 13 neurologic (10.7%), 8 renal (6.6%), 7 pulmonary (5.8%), 6 ischemic (5.0), and 5 (4.1%) hemorrhagic events. Among the EVAR group, 136 (30.2%) patients had postoperative complications, which included 45 ischemic (10.0%), 34 wound (7.6%), 22 renal (4.9%), 12 cardiac (2.7%), 8 pulmonary (1.8%), 5 gastrointestinal (1.1%), and 4 neurologic (0.9%) events. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively higher proportion of women underwent TEVAR than EVAR, and this was reflected in the greater need for iliac conduits to accommodate the larger delivery catheters of the thoracic devices. Intraoperative imaging techniques were also different, and TEVAR required higher contrast volumes despite shorter overall procedure times. The incidence of strokes and spinal cord ischemia was also higher during TEVAR. Despite apparent similarities of devices and techniques, EVAR and TEVAR are fundamentally different procedures with different perioperative outcomes.     

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.