General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2022
Differences of mid-term outcomes in debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair between zone 0 and zone 1-2 landing.
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.
Seike Yoshimasa, Fukuda Tetsuya, Yokawa Koki, Koizumi Shigeki, Masada Kenta, Inoue Yosuke, Sasaki Hiroaki, Matsuda Hitoshi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair (d-TEVAR) for zone 0 landing (Z0-TEVAR) remained challenging in aortic arch aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the mid-term outcomes between Z0-TEVAR and Z1/2-TEVAR to assess the appropriateness of Z0-TEVAR as the first-line therapy for aortic arch aneurysms in high-risk patients.
METHODS: Medical records of 200 patients who underwent d-TEVAR from 2007 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 40 patients who underwent Z0-TEVAR (70% males; the median age of 82 years) and 160 Z1/2-TEVAR (78% males; the median age of 77 years) were compared. In each group, 39 patients were matched using propensity scores (PS) to adjust for differences in patient backgrounds.
RESULTS: Freedom from all-cause mortality (p < 0.001), aorta-related mortality (p < 0.001), and stroke (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Z0-TEVAR than in Z1/2-TEVAR. Freedom from reintervention was similar between the two groups (p = 0.326). Type A dissection post-TEVAR was observed in 3 (7.5%) of Z0-TEVAR, but none in Z1/2-TEVAR (p = 0.006). Pneumonia was also more frequent in Z0-TEVAR (n = 8, 30%) than Z1/2-TEVAR (n = 4, 2.5%) (p < 0.001). PS matching also yielded worse outcomes (all-cause mortality, p = 0.017; aorta-related mortality, p = 0.046; and stroke, p = 0.027) in Z0-TEVAR than Z1/2-TEVAR.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher mid-term mortality and stroke rates after Z0-TEVAR were confirmed by PS matching. Z0-TEVAR would be an alternative for high-risk patients with arch aneurysms requiring zone 0 landing but not a reliable method.
METHODS: Medical records of 200 patients who underwent d-TEVAR from 2007 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 40 patients who underwent Z0-TEVAR (70% males; the median age of 82 years) and 160 Z1/2-TEVAR (78% males; the median age of 77 years) were compared. In each group, 39 patients were matched using propensity scores (PS) to adjust for differences in patient backgrounds.
RESULTS: Freedom from all-cause mortality (p < 0.001), aorta-related mortality (p < 0.001), and stroke (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Z0-TEVAR than in Z1/2-TEVAR. Freedom from reintervention was similar between the two groups (p = 0.326). Type A dissection post-TEVAR was observed in 3 (7.5%) of Z0-TEVAR, but none in Z1/2-TEVAR (p = 0.006). Pneumonia was also more frequent in Z0-TEVAR (n = 8, 30%) than Z1/2-TEVAR (n = 4, 2.5%) (p < 0.001). PS matching also yielded worse outcomes (all-cause mortality, p = 0.017; aorta-related mortality, p = 0.046; and stroke, p = 0.027) in Z0-TEVAR than Z1/2-TEVAR.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher mid-term mortality and stroke rates after Z0-TEVAR were confirmed by PS matching. Z0-TEVAR would be an alternative for high-risk patients with arch aneurysms requiring zone 0 landing but not a reliable method.