胸主动脉腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层

目的:总结胸主动脉腔内修复术(thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair,TEVAR)治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层的经验。方法:对本中心2010年6月~2013年12月接受TEVAR治疗的41例Stanford B型主动脉夹层进行回顾性分析,术前通过主动脉CTA明确诊断并评估病情,术中通过将胸主动脉支架植入来封堵主动脉夹层破口以隔绝假腔。结果:围手术期无死亡病例出现,技术成功率100%,术后1人失访,其余40例进行跟踪随访,随访时间6个月~36个月,平均14个月,2例分别于术后3个月和6个月因心脑血管意外死亡,其余患者均存活,无截瘫、脑梗等严重并发症发生,患者术后近端真腔基本恢复正常管径,近端假腔内血栓形成。结论:TEVAR是治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层的有效方法,技术可靠,安全性较高,创伤小,临床应用前景广泛。     

腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层

<正>主动脉夹层是一种发病急、病死率高的疾病,Stanford B型夹层传统手术治疗创伤大,以前多倾向于保守治疗,其保守治疗5年生存率为50%~[1]     

腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层

目的探讨Stanford B型主动脉夹层腔内修复术治疗经验。方法从2002年5月~2007年10月,对多病并存的8例Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者在选择性动脉造影动态监控下施行了腔内主动脉修复术。移植物大小根据螺旋CT动脉造影测量确定。结果8例腔内修复术均操作成功,其中2例小内漏术后早期随访内漏消失。8例随访1~66个月,螺旋CT扫描提示血管内移植物无移位。结论螺旋CT是在主动脉夹层诊断及术后随访中应用最为广泛的无创技术。腔内主动脉修复术后内漏的处理至关重要。腔内主动脉修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层安全可靠,有良好的应用价值。腔内修复术这一微创治疗方式特别适用于高龄、有伴随疾病等增加开放手术风险的患者。     

腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层

目的研究腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层.方法对176例Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者行腔内修复术,术前行CTA影像学检查,判断主动脉夹层裂口位置与数量及胸主动脉瘤范围、左锁骨下动脉开口左侧胸主动脉直径、近端裂口至左锁骨下动脉开口的距离、真腔直径以及腹主动脉主要分支血管的血供来源,选支架规格及输送路径,然后在全麻下行右股动脉切开,透视引导下置入支架释放系统,定位准确后释放覆膜支架,完成腔内修复术.结果 176例患者腔内修复术均获得成功,出现内漏9例.随访1～24个月,复查CTA后内漏完全消失,未行再次介入或手术治疗.全部病人术后无截瘫发生,胸背部疼痛症状消失.结论与传统手术相比,腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层是一种创伤小、严重并发症少、住院时间短、疗效确切的方法,但远期效果仍有待进一步观察.     

胸主动脉腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层疗效研究

目的:研究胸主动脉腔内修复术对Stanford B型主动脉夹层的治疗效果。方法:收集Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者230例,均行胸主动脉腔内修复(TEVAR)术进行治疗。对TEVAR术的治疗效果以及术前术后的影像学检查结果进行分析,同时对患者进行血压、心率控制、复发、死亡,以及新发夹层等方面随访,对患者随访1年、2年和3年的生存率进行分析。结果:230例Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者TEVAR手术均成功进行,术后4例(1.74%)患者院内死亡,死亡原因均与主动脉血管破裂相关。与术前相比,术后L_1、L_2和L_3处直径变化差异明显不同(P<0.05)。对患者术后不同节段假腔血栓化程度分析,不同节段假腔化血栓程度分布明显不同(P<0.05)。对226例患者进行随访,随访时间12～60个月,平均随访时间(26.31±5.48)个月;在随访期间,复发7例,随访1年、2年、3年后全因病死率、脑梗死、复发和内漏发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访1年、2年和3年生存率分别为95.75%,94.39%和92.90%。结论:TEVAR术治疗Standford B型主动脉夹层的近远期疗效确切,安全性好,且术后病死率较低,术后3年随访结果较为满意。     

胸主动脉腔内修复术治疗慢性B型主动脉夹层中期疗效分析

目的：评价慢性B型主动脉夹层(chronic type B aortic dissection,cTBD)行胸主动脉腔内修复术(thoracic endovascular aortic repair,TEVAR)的安全性和可行性。方法回顾性分析2011年1月-2013年12月本院行TEVAR的25例cTBD患者临床资料。根据随访结果和影像学资料评估患者临床转归和动脉重塑情况。结果手术成功率100%,术后30 d内无死亡病例,中位随访时间28.9(26.4~35.2)个月,1年生存率100%,2年和3年生存率均为95.2%(95%CI：86.1%~100%);支架覆盖动脉段动脉重塑较好,支架以远动脉段累积动脉扩张发生率30%~45%。结论 TEVAR治疗cTBD的成功率和早、中期生存率高,但支架以远动脉重塑水平差。行TEVAR治疗的cTBD患者,术后需密切影像学随访。     

腔内隔绝术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层疗效观察

目的:回顾性总结主动脉腔内支架隔绝术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层动脉瘤的适应证、疗效和经验体会。方法:收集2007年6月-2013年3月本院胸心外科腔内隔绝术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层动脉瘤42例患者的临床资料,术前采用CT血管成像、心脏超声等技术对主动脉夹层动脉瘤进行相关的评估,术中在DSA引导下采用覆膜血管支架封堵夹层原发破口,术后随访CTA。结果:42例移植物均成功释放。1例因手术中发现右侧股动脉细小,未能植入22#覆膜支架血管,给予保守治疗;1例因为术中见左椎动脉优势型,中途停止手术,改为血管置换、象鼻支架支架置入术。全组患者死亡1例;1例术后出现消化道出血;术后发生内瘘3例(包括1例术后并发主动脉食管瘘而死亡);术后出现截瘫1例;1例再发主动脉夹层。其余随访患者术后未出现与动脉瘤及手术相关的并发症,总体生存质量较好。结论:腔内隔绝术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层具有良好的近中期疗效,远期疗效有待进一步研究随访;主要优点在于安全有效、创伤小、手术时间短、术后并发症少、恢复快等。内瘘是该疗法的主要并发症,其预后可能导致患者死亡。     

Stanford B型主动脉夹层腔内修复16例

目的：探讨腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层的经验及疗效.方法：回顾性分析2007-02/2009-06在我科接受腔内修复术治疗的Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者16例的临床资料及随访资料,总结其疗效.结果：接受治疗者无围术期死亡.本组覆膜支架释放均成功,封闭左锁骨下动脉4例,其中采用动脉导管封堵器封堵左锁骨下动脉1例.随访过程中,无内漏、支架移位等并发症发生.1例于术后1a,发生脑出血死亡,其余均存活.结论：腔内修复术是一种创伤小、安全、有效的治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层的方法,但其远期疗效有待进一步观察.     

Totally percutaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair with the preclosing technique: a case-control study

Background  The conventional thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involves groin incisions under general or epidural anesthesia. As technology moves towards less invasive procedures, a total percutaneous approach is desirable. In this study, we describe a Preclosing technique and investigate its safety and efficacy for femoral access sites management, and evaluate its advantages as compared to those of traditional surgical cutdown approaches.

Methods  The Preclosing technique involves two or multiple 6 F Perclose Proglide devices deployed in the femoral artery before upsizing to a 20–25 F sheath. The sutures were secured to close the arteriotomy at the end of the procedure. The medical records of patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repairs using the Preclosing technique between December 2009 and November 2010 (group A) were compared with those using surgical femoral cutdown from January 2008 to November 2009 (group B). Outcome measures included rates of technical success, early complications, anesthesia method, procedure time, cardiac care unit (CCU) stay, time from procedure to discharge, hospital stay, procedure expense, hospital cost.

Results  Between the two groups, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, in the endograft models or profiles. The technical success rate was 100.0% (85/85) in group A vs. 97.4% (147/151) in group B (P <0.05). There was no access-related mortality in both groups. Compared with group B, the incidence of early complications were fewer in group A, 9.4% (8/85) vs. 22.5% (34/151) (P <0.01). Local anesthesia with conscious sedation was used more often in group A, 68.2% (58/85) vs. 51.7% (78/151) in group B (P <0.01). The procedure duration was shorter, (96±33) minutes in group A vs. (127±41) minutes in group B (P <0.01). The length of the CCU stay, the duration from procedure to discharge, and the hospital stay were both reduced in group A, (117.3±88.3) hours, (7.5±5.3) days and (15.3±6.8) days vs. (132.7±115.5) hours, (10.5±5.0) days and (19.5±7.8) days in group B (P <0.01). The procedure cost was RMB (109 000±30 000) Yuan in group A vs. RMB (108 000±25 000) Yuan in group B (P=NS). The hospital cost was RMB  (130 000±35 000) Yuan in group A vs. RMB (128 000±33 000) Yuan in group B (P=NS).

Conclusions  Total percutaneous TEAVR with the Preclosing technique is safe and effective with meticulous technique and appropriate patient selection. The Preclosing technique decreases access-related complications, depends less on general anesthesia and the surgeon’s cooperation, saves procedure time and shortens the CCU/hospital stay. With these advantages, the use of two percutaneous closure devices increases the hospital cost only slightly.

     

Stanford B型主动脉夹层腔内修复术32例短中期结果分析

目的 探讨腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层的经验及其安全性和有效性.方法 回顾性分析2008年12月至2010年7月在本科行腔内修复治疗的Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者32例的临床资料及随访资料.修复后观察真假腔血流动力学变化,内脏及下肢动脉供血的改变.结果 本组接受治疗者无围手术期死亡.所有患者腔内修复治疗后3～24个月随访,无移植物移位、瘤体破裂、中转开胸和截瘫等并发症发生.结论 腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层的短中期结果显示,腔内修复术创伤小、痊愈快、并发症少,其远期疗效有待进一步观察.     

Stanford B型主动脉夹层腔内修复的发展现状

主动脉夹层(AD)是临床常见的灾难性主动脉疾病,其自然预后极差。随着介入治疗技术与相关材料学的发展,胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)已作为复杂型Stanford B型主动脉夹层(cTBAD)的首选治疗方式,得到了大量开展,随之也产生了许多新的手术方式。本文结合相关文献,对TEVAR的各手术方式进行阐述,并对各种方式的术后动脉重塑情况进行综述,力求对动脉重塑技术的现状进行全面评估。     

腔内修复治疗主动脉弓降部病变33例

目的总结应用血管腔内修复术治疗主动脉弓降部病变的初步经验。方法 2007年7月至2011年9月福建医科大学附属协和医院心血管外科对33例主动脉弓降部病变患者实施血管腔内修复术(endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR)治疗,其中男性24例,女性9例,年龄28～81(61.3±19.5)岁,包括累及弓部分支的B型主动脉夹层19例,主动脉弓降部真性动脉瘤7例,主动脉弓降部假性动脉瘤3例,主动脉弓穿透性溃疡3例,主动脉食管瘘1例。所有患者均实施了血管腔内修复,其中12例先进行解剖外旁路手术,16例1期直接覆盖左锁骨下动脉,2例使用覆膜支架近端开槽技术保留左锁骨下动脉,3例使用"烟囱"技术重建左锁骨下动脉或左颈总动脉。结果全组均取得技术成功。术后1例因脑梗塞伴肺炎、肾功能衰竭不治,其余均痊愈出院。30例随访2～52个月,均恢复正常生活。3例出现头晕等窃血表现,在1个月内缓解。术后随访CT血管造影(computerized tomographic angiography,CTA)示:主动脉支架无移位,6例原有内漏已消失,无新的内漏发生,夹层假腔或动脉瘤腔内已有血栓形成,远端夹层假腔无明显扩大,旁路人工血管及"烟囱"支架通畅。结论应用血管腔内修复术治疗主动脉弓降部病变有满意的近期疗效,是治疗此类病变的重要方法。     

Endovascular stent-grafts for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection: comparison of clinical outcomes

Background Endovascular stent-graff treatment has emerged as an alternative for patients with type B aortic dissection （AD）, either at acute or chronic phase, in selected patients. This study aimed to investigate the results of endovascular stent-graft repair for acute and chronic type BAD. Methods From May 2002 to July 2007, 67 patients with type BAD were treated by endovascular stent-graft placement. There were 32 patients in the acute phase （AAD group） and 35 patients in the chronic phase （CAD group）. The patients were followed up from 1 to 65 months （average, 17_＋16 months）. The immediate and follow-up clinical outcomes were documented and compared between the 2 groups. Results Placement of endovascular stent-grafts across the primary entry tears was technically successful in all 67 patients. Compared with patients in the CAD group, those in the AAD group had higher percentages of pleural effusion （15.6% vs 0, P=-0.02） and visceral/leg ischemia （21.9% vs 2.9%, P=0.02）. Procedure related complications, including endoleak and post-implantation syndrome occurred more frequently in AAD group than in CAD group （21.9% vs 2.9% and 31.3% vs 8.6%, respectively; P=0.02 and P=0.02）. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in survival rate at 4 years between the 2 groups （86.4% vs 92.3%, P=0.42 by Log-rank test）. But the 4-year event-free survival rate was higher in patients with chronic dissection than in patients with acute dissection （96.2% vs 73.9%; P=0.02 by Log-rank test）. Conclusions Endovascular repair with stent-graff was safe and effective for the treatment of both acute and chronic type BAD. However, both immediate and long term major complications occurred more frequently in patients with acute dissection than in those with chronic dissection.     

腔内修复术治疗胸腹主动脉瘤

目的探讨胸腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术的手术指征、存在问题及应用前景.方法 2002年5月～2004年8月, 对多病并存的3例胸腹主动脉瘤患者在全麻和选择性动脉造影动态监控下施行了腔内主动脉修复术.结果 3例均为男性,年龄39～83岁.其中Stanford B型胸腹主动脉夹层2例,腹主动脉瘤1例.其中2例经腔内人工血管支架修复后动脉夹层消失,1例腹主动脉瘤消失.3例随访1～24个月,螺旋CT提示血管内移植物无移位.结论腔内主动脉修复术操作简便,疗效可靠,缩短了手术与住院时间,减少了手术风险及术后并发症,有良好的应用价值.     

Experience and early outcome of treating retrograde type A dissection with primary entry tear in the descending thoracic aorta

Once the ascending aorta gets involved and however farther the dissection extends,it is named type A dissection (TAD),in which the entry tear usually locates in the ascending aorta.But there exists a small subset with primary entry tear in the descending aorta and the dissection process extends back into the ascending aorta,which here we name primary retrograde type A dissection (PRTAD).Operative procedures are far more difficult and extensive for PRTAD and usually result in poor prognosis in the aspects of surgical mortality and survival rate during follow-up.1-3 Kato et al4 and Chang et al5 showed successful method of endovascular repair for PRTAD and recommended it as an alternative to the operative treatment.During March 2008 to August 2010,five continuous patients with PRTAD were admitted into our institution.We here introduce our preliminary experience with medical therapy and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)for treating PRTAD.     

Experience of treating retrograde type A dissection with primary entry tear in the descending thoracic aorta and early outcome.

Background Surgery for Stanford type A aortic dissection remains a great challenge because of its need for extensive aortic replacement and remarkable mortality and morbidity. We here introduce our preliminary experience with medical therapy and thoracic endovascular aortic repair(TEVAR) for primary retrograde type A dissection(PRTAD) with the entry tear in the descending thoracic aorta. Methods From March 2008 to August 2010, 5 continuous patients with PRTAD were admitted into our institution. All the lesions were discovered by the spiral computed tomographic angiography (CTA).Once vitals were stabilized, therapeutic measures were applied to the patients including medical therapy and TEVAR. Follow-up was performed with CTA at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and annually thereafter. Diameter measurement of ascending aorta, aortic arch, aorta of the anchoring site and descending aorta was obtained from each follow-up CTA. Results Two patients were simply medically treated: 1 because of the coexistent malignant tumor with short life expectancy, the other for financial reasons. Three patients underwent TEVAR, in whom technical success was unexceptionally achieved with the left subclavian artery intentionally covered. Type I endoleak was observed in 1 patient and managed with balloon dilatation. All patients were followed up (4.6±2.7) months(range, 1 to 11 months). All were free from ischemic stroke or paralysis during the follow-up, and CTA showed complete thrombosis of false lumen in 3 patients、partial thrombosis in 2 and no newly-developed dissection or endoleak. Diameter of ascending aorta, aortic arch and anchoring site expanded during the follow-up. Conclusions TEVAR for PRTAD appeared to be feasible and effective, while the long-term results remained to be determined. In patients with serious co-morbidities and short life expectancy, medical therapy would be recommended.