Kronik Yüzeyel Femoral Arter Tıkanıklığında Retrograd Rekanalizasyon: Birincil Strateji Olarak Güvenli ve Etkili mi?

Ali Baran Budak, Eren Günertem, N. B. Tümer, Kanat Özişik, Serdar Günaydin
{"title":"Kronik Yüzeyel Femoral Arter Tıkanıklığında Retrograd Rekanalizasyon: Birincil Strateji Olarak Güvenli ve Etkili mi?","authors":"Ali Baran Budak, Eren Günertem, N. B. Tümer, Kanat Özişik, Serdar Günaydin","doi":"10.18663/tjcl.1402002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: \nPeripheral arterial disease (PAD) is one the most common cause of mortality and morbidity after coronary artery disease and serebrovascular event worldwide. Endovascular treatment (EVT) of chronic occluded superficial femoral artery SFA is generally managed by antegrade approach. Retrograde popliteal access (RPA) is a valuable option when antegrad attempt fails or has also been preferred as a primary choice. We aim to compare patients in whom RPA in prone position was chosen as a first-line strategy and percutaneous intentional extraluminal angioplasty (PIER) technique was used for recanalization, with patients in whom antegrade attempt had failed and RPA in supine position with either endoluminal or bidirectional “randevous” technique was used for recanalization with 15-month follow-up. \n \nMaterial and Methods: \nWe retrospectively studied consecutive EVTs between February 2017 and April 2019, and selected all EVTs in which RPA was used for the recanalization of CTO of SFA lesions were included. The study divided patients into two groups as Group 1 (n=24): patients in whom RPA in the prone position was chosen as a first-line strategy and PIER technique was used for recanalization (with 6F Sheat) and Group 2 (n=22): patients in whom antegrade attempt had failed and RPA in the supine position with endoluminal recanalization or if the wire failed while crossing the lesion, a bidirectional “double-balloon (rendezvous)” technique was used for recanalization (Sheatless). \nResults: \nTechnical success rate was %100. RCC and ABI were improved post procedurally in both groups significantly. Primary stenting was required in more patients in group 1(70.8% vs. 45.4%; p0.05) .1-year limb-salvage rate was 100 ± 0 for both groups. Primary patency rates of group 2 were higher than group 1, but this difference became significant only at 6th month (95,8%, 87.5%, 79.1% for group 1vs. 100%, 95.4%, 81.8% for group 2, respectively; p","PeriodicalId":120468,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Clinics and Laboratory","volume":"81 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Clinics and Laboratory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18663/tjcl.1402002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is one the most common cause of mortality and morbidity after coronary artery disease and serebrovascular event worldwide. Endovascular treatment (EVT) of chronic occluded superficial femoral artery SFA is generally managed by antegrade approach. Retrograde popliteal access (RPA) is a valuable option when antegrad attempt fails or has also been preferred as a primary choice. We aim to compare patients in whom RPA in prone position was chosen as a first-line strategy and percutaneous intentional extraluminal angioplasty (PIER) technique was used for recanalization, with patients in whom antegrade attempt had failed and RPA in supine position with either endoluminal or bidirectional “randevous” technique was used for recanalization with 15-month follow-up. Material and Methods: We retrospectively studied consecutive EVTs between February 2017 and April 2019, and selected all EVTs in which RPA was used for the recanalization of CTO of SFA lesions were included. The study divided patients into two groups as Group 1 (n=24): patients in whom RPA in the prone position was chosen as a first-line strategy and PIER technique was used for recanalization (with 6F Sheat) and Group 2 (n=22): patients in whom antegrade attempt had failed and RPA in the supine position with endoluminal recanalization or if the wire failed while crossing the lesion, a bidirectional “double-balloon (rendezvous)” technique was used for recanalization (Sheatless). Results: Technical success rate was %100. RCC and ABI were improved post procedurally in both groups significantly. Primary stenting was required in more patients in group 1(70.8% vs. 45.4%; p0.05) .1-year limb-salvage rate was 100 ± 0 for both groups. Primary patency rates of group 2 were higher than group 1, but this difference became significant only at 6th month (95,8%, 87.5%, 79.1% for group 1vs. 100%, 95.4%, 81.8% for group 2, respectively; p
慢性股浅动脉闭塞的逆行再通术:作为主要策略是否安全有效?
目的:外周动脉疾病(PAD)是继冠心病和脑血管事件之后,全球最常见的死亡和发病原因之一。慢性股浅动脉闭塞(SFA)的血管内治疗(EVT)通常采用逆行入路。当逆行腘动脉入路(RPA)尝试失败时,逆行腘动脉入路是一个很有价值的选择,也是首选的入路。我们的目的是将选择俯卧位 RPA 作为一线策略并使用经皮有意腔外血管成形术(PIER)技术进行再通路的患者,与选择前行尝试失败并采用腔内或双向 "游走 "技术仰卧位 RPA 进行再通路的患者(随访 15 个月)进行比较。 材料和方法:我们回顾性研究了2017年2月至2019年4月期间的连续EVT,选择了所有使用RPA对SFA病变的CTO进行再通的EVT。研究将患者分为两组,第一组(n=24):选择俯卧位 RPA 作为一线策略,并使用 PIER 技术进行再通(使用 6F Sheat)的患者;第二组(n=22):前行尝试失败,仰卧位 RPA 进行腔内再通,或如果导线在穿越病变时失败,则使用双向 "双气囊(交会)"技术进行再通(无 Sheat)的患者。结果技术成功率为 100%。两组患者的 RCC 和 ABI 在术后均有明显改善。两组患者的 1 年肢体愈合率均为 100 ± 0。第 2 组的初次通畅率高于第 1 组,但这一差异在第 6 个月时才变得显著(第 1 组分别为 95.8%、87.5%、79.1%;第 2 组分别为 100%、95.4%、81.8%;P0.05)。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信