Annals of vascular surgery · 2022
Hybrid Approaches for Aortic Disease-Our Experience.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Khoynezhad Ali, Worthington Tiffany
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite significant technological advancements in endovascular aortic repair, the aortic arch remains a challenge due to anatomic complexity including arch angulation and morphology as well as the location of brachiocephalic vessels in relation to landing zones. Total endovascular solutions are in development and being studied, in the meantime, hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a viable alternative to traditional open total arch replacement.
METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed reviewing outcomes of 71 patients who underwent hybrid TEVAR in the aortic arch over the past 12 years at our facility.
RESULTS: Major morbidity in the first 30 days post procedure was experienced by 3 patients (15.7%) and included one patient with stroke (n = 1), and another who experienced paraplegia and pulmonary complications (n = 1). There was one in-hospital death as a result of respiratory failure in a patient with multiple underlying comorbidities including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on postoperative day 5 resulting in a 30-day mortality of 5.2%. After a mean follow-up of 30 months, the overall mortality remained 5.2%. Major morbidity occurred in one patient who developed retrograde type A dissection. There was no stenosis of bypass grafts identified on follow-up imaging. Endoleak was identified in 2 patients. One patient experienced persistent retrograde perfusion of the false lumen with interval aneurysmal degeneration which was managed with an Amplatz vascular plug at 120 months following the initial hybrid TEVAR (5.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Single-stage hybrid TEVAR in the aortic arch is technically feasible with a good mid-term survival and a long-term freedom from reintervention.
METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed reviewing outcomes of 71 patients who underwent hybrid TEVAR in the aortic arch over the past 12 years at our facility.
RESULTS: Major morbidity in the first 30 days post procedure was experienced by 3 patients (15.7%) and included one patient with stroke (n = 1), and another who experienced paraplegia and pulmonary complications (n = 1). There was one in-hospital death as a result of respiratory failure in a patient with multiple underlying comorbidities including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on postoperative day 5 resulting in a 30-day mortality of 5.2%. After a mean follow-up of 30 months, the overall mortality remained 5.2%. Major morbidity occurred in one patient who developed retrograde type A dissection. There was no stenosis of bypass grafts identified on follow-up imaging. Endoleak was identified in 2 patients. One patient experienced persistent retrograde perfusion of the false lumen with interval aneurysmal degeneration which was managed with an Amplatz vascular plug at 120 months following the initial hybrid TEVAR (5.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Single-stage hybrid TEVAR in the aortic arch is technically feasible with a good mid-term survival and a long-term freedom from reintervention.