A sex-based analysis of 5-year outcomes following stenting for the treatment of aorto-iliac occlusive disease.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Vascular Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-07 DOI:10.1177/17085381231194152
Bibombe Patrice Mwipatayi, Ian Patrick Barry, Joseph Hanna, Reane Macarulay, Jackie Wong, Shannon Thomas, Vikram Vijayan, Vikram Puttaswamy, Natalie C Ward
{"title":"A sex-based analysis of 5-year outcomes following stenting for the treatment of aorto-iliac occlusive disease.","authors":"Bibombe Patrice Mwipatayi, Ian Patrick Barry, Joseph Hanna, Reane Macarulay, Jackie Wong, Shannon Thomas, Vikram Vijayan, Vikram Puttaswamy, Natalie C Ward","doi":"10.1177/17085381231194152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of sex on mid-term outcomes following stenting for aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Covered versus Balloon Expandable Stent Trial (COBEST) compared the safety and efficacy of the covered stent (CS) with those of the bare metal stent (BMS) in the treatment of hemodynamically significant AIOD. It was identified that CS provided a significant benefit. The primary endpoint of our analysis was the rate of primary patency 5 years following stenting for AIOD (inclusive of both CS and BMS) in both sexes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 168 lesions treated, 103 (61%) were present in men and 65 (39%) were present in women. Of the concomitant comorbidities, diabetes mellitus was significantly more common in women (17.5% vs 41.5%, <i>p</i> = .006). Although chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) at the time of intervention was more common in women, the difference was not significant (16.5% vs 24.6%, <i>p</i> = .395). Sex was not associated with the primary patency rate (male; 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-2.19, <i>p</i> = .543). When considering both male sex and the utilization of BMS, no significant impact was found on the primary patency rate (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.43, 95% CI: 0.69-17.10, <i>p</i> = .133). All-cause mortality at 60 months was 22.6% in men compared to 19.4% in women (<i>p</i> = .695).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No significant difference was identified in the primary patency rate between the sexes. Further investigation is warranted to ascertain whether sex-specific interventional guidelines are required in this regard.</p>","PeriodicalId":23549,"journal":{"name":"Vascular","volume":" ","pages":"1403-1409"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381231194152","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of sex on mid-term outcomes following stenting for aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD).

Methods: The Covered versus Balloon Expandable Stent Trial (COBEST) compared the safety and efficacy of the covered stent (CS) with those of the bare metal stent (BMS) in the treatment of hemodynamically significant AIOD. It was identified that CS provided a significant benefit. The primary endpoint of our analysis was the rate of primary patency 5 years following stenting for AIOD (inclusive of both CS and BMS) in both sexes.

Results: Of the 168 lesions treated, 103 (61%) were present in men and 65 (39%) were present in women. Of the concomitant comorbidities, diabetes mellitus was significantly more common in women (17.5% vs 41.5%, p = .006). Although chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) at the time of intervention was more common in women, the difference was not significant (16.5% vs 24.6%, p = .395). Sex was not associated with the primary patency rate (male; 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-2.19, p = .543). When considering both male sex and the utilization of BMS, no significant impact was found on the primary patency rate (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.43, 95% CI: 0.69-17.10, p = .133). All-cause mortality at 60 months was 22.6% in men compared to 19.4% in women (p = .695).

Conclusions: No significant difference was identified in the primary patency rate between the sexes. Further investigation is warranted to ascertain whether sex-specific interventional guidelines are required in this regard.

基于性别的髂主动脉闭塞症支架术后 5 年疗效分析。
研究目的本研究旨在评估性别对髂主动脉闭塞症(AIOD)支架置入术后中期疗效的影响:覆盖型与球囊扩张型支架试验(COBEST)比较了覆盖型支架(CS)与裸金属支架(BMS)在治疗血流动力学显著性髂主动脉闭塞症方面的安全性和有效性。结果表明,CS 具有显著疗效。我们分析的主要终点是支架治疗AIOD(包括CS和BMS)后5年的一次通畅率,男女均包括在内:在接受治疗的 168 个病变中,男性 103 例(61%),女性 65 例(39%)。在并发症中,女性患糖尿病的比例明显更高(17.5% vs 41.5%,P = .006)。虽然女性在接受介入治疗时更常见慢性肢体缺血(CLTI),但差异并不显著(16.5% vs 24.6%,p = .395)。性别与初次通畅率无关(男性;0.70,95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.23-2.19,P = .543)。如果同时考虑男性性别和使用 BMS 的情况,则发现对初次通畅率没有显著影响(危险比 [HR]:3.43,95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.69-17.10,P = .133)。60个月的全因死亡率男性为22.6%,女性为19.4%(P = .695):结论:在初次通畅率方面,男女之间没有明显差异。在这方面,是否需要制定针对不同性别的介入治疗指南,还需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Vascular
Vascular 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
196
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Vascular provides readers with new and unusual up-to-date articles and case reports focusing on vascular and endovascular topics. It is a highly international forum for the discussion and debate of all aspects of this distinct surgical specialty. It also features opinion pieces, literature reviews and controversial issues presented from various points of view.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信