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。     

Stanford B型主动脉夹层腔内隔绝术后急性肾损伤的危险因素及预后分析

目的:探讨Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者行胸主动脉夹层腔内隔绝术(TEVAR)后急性肾损伤的相关危险因素及预后。方法:回顾性分析安徽省立医院2013年12月—2016年12月193例Stanford B型主动脉夹层行TEVAR治疗患者的临床资料,根据急性肾损伤网络(AKIN)标准诊断急性肾损伤。结果:193例患者中,36例(18.7%)发生TEVAR后急性肾损伤。单因素分析结果显示,糖尿病病史、入院收缩压、入院舒张压、术中造影剂用量、肾动脉累及范围与TEVAR后急性肾损伤有关(均P0.05)。多因素Logsitic回归分析显示,糖尿病病史(OR=4.458,95%CI=1.176～16.897,P=0.028);入院收缩压(OR=1.036,95%CI=1.011～1.063,P0.01);造影剂用量(OR=1.025,95%CI=1.012～1.038,P0.01);肾动脉受累情况(OR=3.130,95%CI=1.222～8.017,P=0.017)是TEVAR后急性肾损伤的独立危险因素。随访结果分析显示,急性肾损伤患者早期病死率明显高于非急性肾损伤患者(22.6%vs. 6.3%,χ~2=8.00,P0.005),有糖尿病病史患者术后生存率明显低与无糖尿病病史患者(P0.05)。结论:入院收缩压水平、糖尿病病史、术中造影剂用量、双肾动脉受累是Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者行TEVAR术后出现急性肾损伤密切相关。TEVAR术后出现急性肾损伤患者的早期病死率明显增加,同时糖尿病病史对于术后患者预后具有预测价值。     

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。     

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。     

“杂交”联合TEVAR与单纯介入技术对复杂B型夹层治疗的比较

目的 :探讨"杂交"联合胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)与单纯TEVAR治疗复杂Stanford B型主动脉夹层的效果。方法:复杂Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者96例,根据手术类型分为杂交组(51例)和介入组(45例),杂交组采用杂交技术联合TEVAR治疗,介入组采用单纯TEVAR治疗,比较两组手术情况及围手术期、随访末期并发症发生率、病死率,术前及随访末期真、假腔最大径及比值变化。结果:两组ICU时间、住院时间、支架覆盖长度差异无统计学意义(P0.05),杂交组手术时间长于介入组(P0.01);杂交组随访时真、假腔比值大于介入组,假腔最大直径小于介入组(P0.05);两组围手术期及随访末期并发症、病死率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:杂交手术联合TEVAR治疗复杂Stanford B型主动脉夹层的近、中期效果确切。     

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.     

体外循环术后发生急性肾损伤患者的危险因素分析——单中心回顾性研究

目的评估心脏体外循环术后急性肾损伤行连续性肾脏替代治疗患者发生死亡的危险因素。方法回顾性分析2009年5月至2014年6月我院心脏外科术后行连续性肾脏替代治疗66例患者的临床资料,其中男38例、女28例,平均年龄(59.11±12.62)岁。按照出院时治疗结果分为存活组(18例)和死亡组(48例)。采用logistic多因素回归分析体外循环术后因肾脏功能不全接受连续性肾脏替代治疗患者围手术期死亡危险因素。结果单一因素分析结果提示两组患者术中输血量、术中血糖、血乳酸峰值、术后1 h总胆红素、血小板值、术后1 d内低血压、术后肺部感染、多器官功能障碍(MODS)、少尿到血虑的间隔时间差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。多因素logistic回归分析结果提示,两组术后1 d出现低血压、术后血小板值、少尿到血虑的间隔时间差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论加强术中管理,减少出血和输血,控制血糖,积极处理低血压、肺部感染、MODS等并发症,及早启动肾脏替代治疗,有利于降低死亡率,监测术后1 d的血压和血小板对于预后判断具有指导意义。     

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术后低血压影响因素研究

目的探讨经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)术后低血压发生的相关因素。方法采用一般情况调查表、PCI术后低血压情况记录表收集140例PCI患者术后血压情况及相关影响因素,运用单因素分析及Logistic回归分析探索PCI术后低血压相关因素。结果140例患者中,35例发生低血压,发生率为25.0%。Logistic回归分析结果显示,PCI术后患者低血压发生的危险因素有术后血流分级和术后使用替罗非班,保护因素有胸痛到梗死相关动脉(IRA)开通时间和右冠状动脉病变(P0.05,P0.01)。结论PCI术后易并发低血压,其影响因素是多方面的,医护人员应有效控制危险因素,更好地防治PCI术后低血压的发生。     

单中心腔内修复术治疗不同分型非复杂性急性B型主动脉夹层的近中期效果

目的分析非复杂性急性B型主动脉夹层(uATBAD)的影像特征, 评价胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)治疗不同分型uATBAD的近中期效果。方法回顾性分析2015年1月至2021年8月浙江省人民医院140例接受TEVAR治疗的非复杂性急性B型主动脉夹层患者临床资料。根据是否存在高危特征将患者分为无高危特征组(uATBAD组, 22例), 高危特征组(高危型uATBAD组, 118例)。分析患者的临床、随访资料, 评价两组患者围手术期及随访期间的并发症发生率、再次干预率、死亡率等情况。结果高危特征组的主动脉直径、假腔直径及破口位于小弯侧发生率均高于无高危特征组, 差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。两组患者围手术期并发症发生率及30 d死亡率相比较差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。140例患者随访时间6～83个月, 中位随访时间38.3个月。5年中期随访结果显示, 两组中期主动脉相关并发症发生率、再干预率、死亡率相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论不同分型uATBAD的影像特征具有显著差异, 两组在TEVAR治疗后的近中期临床效果相似。     

食管癌术后发生急性肾损伤危险因素分析及处理

目的探讨食管癌术后急性肾损伤(acute kidney injury,AKI)的危险因素、临床意义及围手术期处理。方法回顾性分析397例食管癌手术患者的临床资料,统计术后AKI的发生情况,按有无AKI发生分为AKI组和非AKI组,将发生AKI患者与非AKI患者进行相关因素比较分析。结果本组研究397例食管癌手术患者中25例发生AKI,其中Ⅰ期15例,Ⅱ期4例,Ⅲ期6例,总患病率为6.3%。25例发生AKI的患者中,出院时存活21例(占84%),死亡4例(占16%)。AKI与非AKI的相关因素比较:年龄、冠心病、慢性阻塞性肺疾病、术前血肌酐、术前化疗、淋巴结清扫数、术中失血量、手术时间、术后呼吸机应用时间等因素差异,无统计学意义(P0.05);糖尿病、高血压、术后肺部感染及肾外器官衰竭差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。Logistic多因素回归分析结果显示,糖尿病、高血压、术后肺部感染及肾外器官衰竭是食管癌术后并发AKI的独立危险因素。结论 AKI是食管癌患者术后常见的并发症且易被忽视,须注意引起AKI的常见原因,对于存在AKI危险因素的患者加强围手术期管理,严密监测肾功能。一旦发生AKI,预后极差,因此,要早期选择最佳的治疗方案,提高食管癌患者术后生存率,减少病死率。     

Spinal cord ischemia after elective stent-graft repair of the thoracic aorta

OBJECTIVES: Neurologic deficit after endovascular treatment of the thoracic aorta is a complication reported with variable frequency that may be associated with severe morbidity and mortality. The mechanism of spinal cord ischemia appears to be multifactorial and remains ill-defined. We reviewed our experience to investigate the determinants of paraplegia after stent-graft repair of the thoracic aorta, identify patients at risk, and assess the effectiveness of ancillary techniques. METHODS: Over a 5-year period (June 1999 to December 2004), 103 patients underwent elective endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta at a university referral center. Indications for treatment were atherosclerotic aneurysms in 88 patients, chronic type B dissection in 10 patients, and penetrating aortic ulcer in 5 patients. Four of the 103 patients affected with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms had hybrid procedures and were excluded from the cumulative analysis. Twelve patients with zone 0 and zone 1 aortic arch aneurysms were operated on with synchronous or staged surgical aortic debranching. Preoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage was instituted in seven selected patients. Neurologic deficits were assessed by an independent neurologist and classified as immediate or delayed. Patient demographics and perioperative factors related to the endovascular procedure were evaluated by using univariate statistical analyses. RESULTS: A primary technical success was achieved in 94 patients (94.9%). At a mean follow-up of 34 +/- 14 months, a midterm clinical success was obtained in 90 patients (90.9%). Four patients (4.04%) had delayed neurologic deficit that completely resolved after the institution of CSF drainage, steroids administration, and arterial pressure pharmacologic adjustment. None of the four patients who underwent hybrid procedures for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms had paraplegia or paraparesis. Univariate analyses identified only a perioperative lowest mean arterial pressure (MAP) of <70 mm Hg as a significant risk factor (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Perioperative hypotension (MAP <70 mm Hg) was found to be a significant predictor of spinal cord ischemia; hence, careful monitoring and prompt correction of arterial pressure may prevent the development of paraplegia. When the latter occurred, reduction of the CSF pressure by drainage was useful. Patients with a previous or synchronous abdominal aortic repair may also benefit from CSF drainage as a perioperative adjunct.     

Blunt thoracic aortic injury: a single institution comparison of open and endovascular management

OBJECTIVE: To review the treatment of blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BAI) at a single institution over the past 12 years and compare pre-, peri-, and postoperative variables and outcomes of both open (OR) and thoracic endovascular (TEVAR) repair of these injuries. METHODS: All cases of confirmed BAI from 1994 to present were included in this retrospective review. Data collected included demographic data, injury severity score, Glasgow coma score, arrival hemodynamic variables, and associated injuries. Operative data included: type of procedure (OR or TEVAR), duration of procedure, need for and amount of blood transfused, use of anticoagulation, type of anesthesia, and service performing the procedure. Outcomes evaluated were: death, paraplegia, length of stay, days ventilated, and procedure related complications. Specific to EVAR; access, stent graft type and number, presence of endoleak and long-term clinical and radiologic follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty cases of blunt thoracic aortic injury were identified. Two patients received no treatment and died, 28 patients were treated (OR 16, TEVAR 12) and included for comparison. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to preoperative variables with the exception of significantly more associated intra-abdominal injuries in the TEVAR group (P = .03). Five patients in the OR group (31.2%) died in the perioperative period. There were no deaths in the TEVAR group (P =.05). One OR patient (6.25%) suffered postoperative paraplegia. No paraplegia occurred in the TEVAR group. Intraoperative variables were similar between groups with the exception of mean units of blood transfused (OR 8.5 units, vs TEVAR 0.2 units, P = .002). Ten patients in the OR group either died or had a procedure related complication compared with none in the TEVAR group (P = .001). There was no difference in length of stay or length of mechanical ventilation between the groups. There were no procedure or device related complications in the TEVAR group during follow-up (mean 15.3 months, range 1 to 53.5 months). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of BAI results in significantly less combined mortality and morbidity when compared to OR. Significantly less blood is needed intraoperatively in the TEVAR group. No complications from stent graft insertion have been observed during follow-up. Endovascular repair is replacing open repair as the treatment of choice for BAI at our institution.     

Reversal of delayed-onset paraparesis after revision thoracic endovascular aortic repair for ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysm

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is an important surgical option for the emergency treatment of ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms, but is associated with a risk of spinal cord ischemia (SCI). Although risk factors for the development of SCI have been well described, the effectiveness of treatment to increase spinal cord perfusion pressure remains incompletely understood. We report the successful treatment of delayed-onset paraparesis after revision TEVAR for acute descending thoracic aortic rupture with the combined use of blood pressure augmentation and cerebrospinal fluid drainage. The clinical manifestations, pathophysiology, and management of SCI after TEVAR are reviewed.     

A population-based analysis of endovascular aortic stent graft therapy in patients with liver cirrhosis

BackgroundEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are effective and minimally invasive treatments for high-risk surgical candidates. However, information about the management of EVAR and TEVAR in liver cirrhosis (LC) is lacking. The aim of our study was to evaluate outcomes after EVAR and TEVAR in patients with LC.MethodsUsing Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent EVAR and TEVAR therapy between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2013.ResultsA total of 146 patients with LC and 730 matched patients without LC were eligible for analysis after propensity score matching. In-hospital mortality and perioperative complications were not statistically significantly different between the two cohorts, although the LC group had an increased volume of blood transfusion and a trend toward a lower survival rate (P of stratified Cox = .092). However, patients with LC had a higher adjusted hazard ratio for death (1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.12; P < .001) in the sensitivity analysis by traditional multivariable adjustment. The LC cohort had a higher risk of liver-related death (4.1% vs 0.7%; P = .001) and liver-related readmission (6.2% vs 0.3%; P < .001). As expected, the advanced LC group had a higher mortality rate than the early LC group (P = .022). The risk for reintervention, redo open aortic surgery (P = .859), and redo stent graft therapy (P = .179) was not statistically significantly different between the two cohorts.ConclusionsShort-term results after EVAR and TEVAR are promising in patients with LC, despite poor long-term outcomes, because of the nature of LC. Innovations in endovascular therapy for aortic disease have improved surgical outcomes, even in high-risk patients with LC.     

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.     

胸主动脉腔内修复术封堵左锁骨下动脉的前瞻性研究

目的 探讨胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)封堵左锁骨下动脉的安全性和可行性.方法 2007年12月至2008年12月共111例胸主动脉病变患者进入本研究.根据术中封堵左锁骨下动脉的情况分为完伞封堵、封堵<50%、封堵>50%和未封堵组.术前及术后第1、3、5和30天随访测量患者双卜肢的血压差值,同时评估有无脑卒中、偏瘫和截瘫以及左上肢缺血等情况.结果 完全封堵55例(49.6%),封堵<50%18例(16.2%),封堵>50%7例(6.3%),未封堵31例(27.9%).所有患者TEVAR均成功,无脑卒中、截瘫及偏瘫发生.完全封堵组与其余3组相比,双上肢血压差值的差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).术后1周内完全封堵组中13例出现与左上肢活动无关的头晕,其中5例伴黑矇;7例出现左上肢间歇性跛行症状.结论 TEVAR中,为延长近端锚定区对左锁骨下动脉的封堵是安全可行的,但在某些情况下应行血管重建,以提供更为持久的修复效果.     

Endovascular stenting of thoracic aortic aneurysm

In 2005, the findings of the multicenter Gore Tag study led to United States Food and Drug Administration approval for endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TEVAR). TEVAR provides a therapeutic option for patients who have thoracic aortic aneurysm and for the treatment of type B aortic dissection with malperfusion. Spinal cord ischemia and stroke are recognized neurologic complications of TEVAR. Identification of high-risk patients combined with targeted anesthetic and perioperative management may decrease the risk of neurologic complications after TEVAR.     

How to prevent spinal cord injury during endovascular repair of thoracic aortic disease

The incidence of spinal cord injury in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been 3–5 % from recent major papers where sacrifice of the critical intercostal arteries is inevitable by a stent graft. Hemodynamic stability, which depends on a network of blood vessels around the cord is most important not only during but also after stent-graft deployment. High risk factors of spinal cord injury during endovascular aortic repair are (1) coverage of the left subclavian artery, (2) extensive coverage of long segments of the thoracic aorta, (3) prior downstream aortic repair, (4) compromising important intercostal (T8–L1), vertebral, pelvic and hypogastric collaterals, and (5) shaggy aorta. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative managements have been required to prevent spinal cord injury with TEVAR. For imaging assessment of blood supply to spinal cord including Adamkiewicz artery, prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage is mandatory, and monitoring motor-evoked potential is recommended for high risk factors of spinal cord injury. Mean arterial pressure should be maintained over 90 mmHg after stent-graft placement for a while to prevent delayed spinal cord ischemia in high-risk patients of spinal cord ischemia. Finally, because spinal cord injury during TEVAR is not rare and negligible, perioperative care during TEVAR should be strictly performed according to the protocol proposed by each cardiovascular team.