Yonsei medical journal · 2015
Endovascular Repair versus Open Repair for Isolated Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm.
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.
Lee Hyung Chae, Joo Hyun-Chel, Lee Seung Hyun, Lee Sak, Chang Byung-Chul, Yoo Kyung-Jong, Youn Young-Nam
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with those of open repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the outcomes of 114 patients with DTAA and proximal landing zones 3 or 4 after TEVAR to those of 53 patients after conventional open repairs. Thirty-day and late mortality were the primary endpoints, and early morbidities, aneurysm-related death, and re-intervention were the secondary endpoints.
RESULTS: The TEVAR group was older and had more incidences of dissecting aneurysm. The mean follow-up was 36±26 months (follow-up rate, 97.8%). The 30-day mortality in the TEVAR and open repair groups were 3.5% and 9.4% (p=0.11). Perioperative stroke and paraplegia incidences were similar between the groups [5.3% vs. 7.5% (p=0.56) and 7.5% vs. 3.5% (p=0.26), respectively]. Respiratory failure occurred more in the open repair group (1.8% vs. 26.4%, p<0.01). The incidence of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis was higher in the open repair group (1.8% vs. 9.4%, p<0.01). The cumulative survival rate was higher in the TEVAR group at 2 to 5 years (79.6% vs. 58.3%, p=0.03). The free from re-intervention was lower in the TEVAR group (65.3% vs. 100%, p=0.02), and the free from aneurysm-related death in the TEVAR and open repair groups were 88.5% and 86.1% (p=0.45).
CONCLUSION: TEVAR is safe and effective for treating DTAAs with improved perioperative and long-term outcomes compared with open repair.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the outcomes of 114 patients with DTAA and proximal landing zones 3 or 4 after TEVAR to those of 53 patients after conventional open repairs. Thirty-day and late mortality were the primary endpoints, and early morbidities, aneurysm-related death, and re-intervention were the secondary endpoints.
RESULTS: The TEVAR group was older and had more incidences of dissecting aneurysm. The mean follow-up was 36±26 months (follow-up rate, 97.8%). The 30-day mortality in the TEVAR and open repair groups were 3.5% and 9.4% (p=0.11). Perioperative stroke and paraplegia incidences were similar between the groups [5.3% vs. 7.5% (p=0.56) and 7.5% vs. 3.5% (p=0.26), respectively]. Respiratory failure occurred more in the open repair group (1.8% vs. 26.4%, p<0.01). The incidence of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis was higher in the open repair group (1.8% vs. 9.4%, p<0.01). The cumulative survival rate was higher in the TEVAR group at 2 to 5 years (79.6% vs. 58.3%, p=0.03). The free from re-intervention was lower in the TEVAR group (65.3% vs. 100%, p=0.02), and the free from aneurysm-related death in the TEVAR and open repair groups were 88.5% and 86.1% (p=0.45).
CONCLUSION: TEVAR is safe and effective for treating DTAAs with improved perioperative and long-term outcomes compared with open repair.