Vascular and endovascular surgery · 2024
Differences in In-Hospital and Follow-Up Outcomes Between Non-A Non-B Aortic Dissection and Type B Aortic Dissection Treated by Endovascular Based Treatment.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Gen, Li Jun, Deng Hongping, Wei Xiang, Li Na
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Non-A non-B aortic dissection (AD) is a rare and life-threatening medical emergency, and it has been controversial whether it should be managed as type B aortic dissection (TBAD). The study aims to compare in-hospital and follow-up outcomes between patients with non-A non-B AD and those with TBAD treated by endovascular based treatment (EBT).
METHODS: From January 2017 to December 2021, 96 consecutive patients with non-A non-B AD met the inclusion criteria and underwent EBT. Patients with TBAD were matched to patients with non-A non-B AD at a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching analysis to correct for baseline confounding factors. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Aortic-related events were defined as dissection-related death, aortic rupture, retrograde type A aortic dissection, reintervention, and type Ia endoleak.
RESULTS: Patients with non-A non-B AD required more TEVAR-related adjunctive procedures compared to TBAD patients during EBT and they required a longer ICU length of stay (36.0 vs 24.0 hours, P < .05) as well as a longer hospitalization (8.0 vs 7.0 days, P < .05) after EBT. There was no statistical difference in overall survival after EBT for patients with TBAD and non-A non-B AD. However, compared to patients with TBAD, non-A non-B AD patients had a higher rate of reintervention and experienced more aortic-related late events during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Patients with non-A non-B acute AD who are treated with EBT do not have higher in-hospital or follow-up mortality rates compared to patients with type B AD. However, there is an increased risk of reintervention and aortic-related late events after the intervention during follow-up.
METHODS: From January 2017 to December 2021, 96 consecutive patients with non-A non-B AD met the inclusion criteria and underwent EBT. Patients with TBAD were matched to patients with non-A non-B AD at a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching analysis to correct for baseline confounding factors. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Aortic-related events were defined as dissection-related death, aortic rupture, retrograde type A aortic dissection, reintervention, and type Ia endoleak.
RESULTS: Patients with non-A non-B AD required more TEVAR-related adjunctive procedures compared to TBAD patients during EBT and they required a longer ICU length of stay (36.0 vs 24.0 hours, P < .05) as well as a longer hospitalization (8.0 vs 7.0 days, P < .05) after EBT. There was no statistical difference in overall survival after EBT for patients with TBAD and non-A non-B AD. However, compared to patients with TBAD, non-A non-B AD patients had a higher rate of reintervention and experienced more aortic-related late events during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Patients with non-A non-B acute AD who are treated with EBT do not have higher in-hospital or follow-up mortality rates compared to patients with type B AD. However, there is an increased risk of reintervention and aortic-related late events after the intervention during follow-up.