排序方式： 共有8条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
Abhisekh Mohapatra Aureline Boitet Othman Malak Jon C. Henry Efthimios D. Avgerinos Michel S. Makaroun Eric S. Hager Rabih A. Chaer 《Journal of vascular surgery》2019,69(1):148-155
Objective
The peroneal artery is a well-established target for bypass in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of peroneal artery revascularization in terms of wound healing and limb salvage in patients with CLI.Methods
Patients presenting between 2006 and 2013 with CLI (Rutherford 4-6) and isolated peroneal runoff were included in the study. They were divided into patients who underwent bypass to the peroneal artery and those who underwent endovascular peroneal artery intervention. Demographics, comorbidities, and follow-up data were recorded. Wounds were classified by Wound, Ischemia, foot Infection (WIfI) score. The primary outcome was wound healing; secondary outcomes included mortality, major amputation, and patency.Results
There were 200 limbs with peroneal bypass and 138 limbs with endovascular peroneal intervention included, with mean follow-up of 24.0 ± 26.3 and 14.5 ± 19.1 months, respectively (P = .0001). The two groups were comparable in comorbidities, with the exception of the endovascular group's having more patients with cardiac and renal disease and diabetes mellitus but fewer patients with smoking history. Based on WIfI criteria, ischemia scores were worse in bypass patients, but wound and foot infection scores were worse in endovascular patients. Perioperatively, bypass patients had higher rates of myocardial infarction (4.5% vs 0%; P = .012) and incisional complications (13.0% vs 4.4%; P = .008). At 12 months, the bypass group compared with the endovascular group had better primary patency (47.9% vs 23.4%; P = .002) and primary assisted patency (63.6% vs 42.2%; P = .003) and a trend toward better secondary patency (74.2% vs 63.5%; P = .11). There were no differences in the rate of wound healing (52.6% vs 37.7% at 1 year; P = .09) or freedom from major amputation (81.5% vs 74.7% at 1 year; P = .37). In a multivariate analysis, neuropathy was associated with improved wound healing, whereas WIfI wound score, cancer, chronic renal insufficiency, and smoking were associated with decreased wound healing. Treatment modality was not a significant predictor (P = .15).Conclusions
Endovascular peroneal artery intervention results in poorer primary and primary assisted patency rates than surgical bypass to the peroneal artery but provides similar wound healing and limb salvage rates with a lower rate of complications. In appropriately selected patients, endovascular intervention to treat the peroneal artery is a low-risk intervention that may be sufficient to heal ischemic foot wounds. 相似文献2.
3.
4.
5.
Boitet Rosalie Gaillard Nicolas Bendiab Eddine Corti Lucas Roos Caroline Reynes Jacques Costalat Vincent Arquizan Caroline Ducros Anne 《Journal of neurology》2020,267(2):390-394
Journal of Neurology - Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is a common cause of thunderclap headache (TCH), mainly recurrent, sometimes associated with seizures and/or neurological... 相似文献
6.
Natalie D. Sridharan Aureline Boitet Kenneth Smith Kathy Noorbakhsh Efthymios Avgerinos Mohammad H. Eslami Michel Makaroun Rabih Chaer 《Journal of vascular surgery》2018,67(1):343-352
Objective
Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) may increase durability of endovascular treatment of superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease while avoiding stent-related risks. The purpose of this study was to use meta-analytic data of DCB studies to compare the cost-effectiveness of potential SFA treatments: DCB, drug-eluting stent (DES), plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), or bare-metal stent (BMS).Methods
A search for randomized controlled trials comparing DCB with POBA for treatment of SFA disease was performed. Hazard ratios were extracted to account for the time-to-event primary outcome of target lesion revascularization. Odds ratios were calculated for the secondary outcomes of primary patency (PP) and major amputation. Incorporating pooled data from the meta-analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, assuming a payer perspective, used a decision model to simulate patency at 1 year and 2 years for each index treatment modality: POBA, BMS, DCB, or DES. Costs were based on current Medicare outpatient reimbursement rates.Results
Eight studies (1352 patients) met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. DCB outperformed POBA with respect to target lesion revascularization over time (pooled hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Risk of major amputation at 12 months was not significantly different between groups. There was significantly improved 1-year PP in the DCB group compared with POBA (pooled odds ratio, 3.30; P < .001). In the decision model, the highest PP at 1 year was seen in the DES index therapy strategy (79%), followed by DCB (74%), BMS (71%), and POBA (64%). With a baseline cost of $9259.39 per patent limb at 1 year in the POBA-first group, the incremental cost per patent limb for each other strategy compared with POBA was calculated: $14,136.10/additional patent limb for DCB, $38,549.80/limb for DES, and $59,748,85/limb for BMS. The primary BMS option is dominated by being more expensive and less effective than DCB. Compared directly with DCB, DES costs $87,377.20 per additional patent limb at 1 year. Based on the projected PP at 1 year in the decision model, the number needed to treat for DES compared with DCB is 20. At current reimbursement, the use of more than two DCBs per procedure would no longer be cost-effective compared with DES. At 2 years, DCB emerges as the most cost-effective index strategy with the lowest overall cost and highest patency rates over that time horizon.Conclusions
Current data and reimbursements support the use of DCB as a cost-effective strategy for endovascular intervention in the SFA; any additional effectiveness of DES comes at a high price. Use of more than one DCB per intervention significantly decreases cost-effectiveness. 相似文献7.
Pierre-Yves Brichon Philippe Boitet Antoine Dujon Jer?me Mouroux Christophe Peillon Marc Riquet Jean-Francois Velly Hans-Beat Ris 《European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery》2006,30(5):793-796
BACKGROUND: Incidence of perioperative in-stent thrombosis associated with myocardial infarction in patients undergoing major lung resection within 3 months of coronary stenting. METHODS: Retrospective multi-institutional trial including all patients undergoing major lung resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) within 3 months of coronary stenting with non-drug-eluting stents between 1999 and 2004. RESULTS: There were 32 patients (29 men and 3 women), with age ranging from 46 to 82 years. One, two or four coronary stents were deployed in 72%, 22% and 6% of the patients, respectively. The time intervals between stenting and lung surgery were <30 days, 30-60 days and 61-90 days in 22%, 53% and 25% of the patients, respectively. All patients had dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting. Perioperative medication consisted of heparin alone or heparin plus aspirin in 34% and 66% of the patients, respectively. Perioperative in-stent thrombosis with myocardial infarction occurred in three patients (9%) with fatal outcome in one (3%). Twenty patients underwent lung resection after 4 weeks of dual antiplatelet therapy as recommended by the ACC/AHA Guideline Update; however, two out of three perioperative in-stent thrombosis occurred in this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Major lung resection performed within 3 months of coronary stenting may be complicated by perioperative in-stent thrombosis despite 4 weeks of dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting as recommended by the ACC/AHA Guideline Update. 相似文献
8.
1