Secondary aortic intervention may not impair survival in patients treated with TEVAR for type B aortic dissection: A Finnish national registry study.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Toimela Juhana, Hedman Marja, Selander Tuomas, Husso Annastiina
{"title":"Secondary aortic intervention may not impair survival in patients treated with TEVAR for type B aortic dissection: A Finnish national registry study.","authors":"Toimela Juhana, Hedman Marja, Selander Tuomas, Husso Annastiina","doi":"10.1177/14574969251321967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>This study investigated patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) who were treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The aim was to study whether patients who needed secondary aortic intervention (SAI) had worse survival than patients who did not require SAI after the initial TEVAR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from the National Care Register for Health Care (CRHC) at the Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare. All Patients over 15 years of age with TBAD (ICD-10; I71.01) treated with TEVAR during the years 2000-2019 were included in the study. Data were collected retrospectively. A data search of the Official Statistics of Finland Cause of Death registry was carried out to identify the date and cause of death in patients with TBAD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>236 patients with TBAD received TEVAR as primary operative treatment from year 2000 to 2019. SAI after initial TEVAR was performed in 45 (17%) patients during median follow-up time of 5.1 years. There was no significant difference in survival between the patients who underwent primary TEVAR alone and those who required additional SAI (<i>p</i> = 0.063). Age-adjusted survival did not differ between the groups either. Median follow-up time was significantly longer in the SAI group compared to patients with no SAI (5.9 vs 4.9 years, <i>p</i> = 0.047). The most common cause of death in both groups was an aortic-related event (47%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on this study, SAIs may not impair the overall survival of patients previously treated with TEVAR for TBAD. Systematic follow-up after the initial TEVAR may be beneficial in identifying patients with TBAD who may require secondary operation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49566,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"14574969251321967"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14574969251321967","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: This study investigated patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) who were treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The aim was to study whether patients who needed secondary aortic intervention (SAI) had worse survival than patients who did not require SAI after the initial TEVAR.

Methods: Data were collected from the National Care Register for Health Care (CRHC) at the Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare. All Patients over 15 years of age with TBAD (ICD-10; I71.01) treated with TEVAR during the years 2000-2019 were included in the study. Data were collected retrospectively. A data search of the Official Statistics of Finland Cause of Death registry was carried out to identify the date and cause of death in patients with TBAD.

Results: 236 patients with TBAD received TEVAR as primary operative treatment from year 2000 to 2019. SAI after initial TEVAR was performed in 45 (17%) patients during median follow-up time of 5.1 years. There was no significant difference in survival between the patients who underwent primary TEVAR alone and those who required additional SAI (p = 0.063). Age-adjusted survival did not differ between the groups either. Median follow-up time was significantly longer in the SAI group compared to patients with no SAI (5.9 vs 4.9 years, p = 0.047). The most common cause of death in both groups was an aortic-related event (47%).

Conclusions: Based on this study, SAIs may not impair the overall survival of patients previously treated with TEVAR for TBAD. Systematic follow-up after the initial TEVAR may be beneficial in identifying patients with TBAD who may require secondary operation.

继发性主动脉介入治疗可能不会影响接受TEVAR治疗的B型主动脉夹层患者的生存:芬兰国家登记研究。
背景和目的:本研究调查了接受胸椎血管内主动脉修复术(TEVAR)治疗的B型主动脉夹层(TBAD)患者。目的是研究在初始TEVAR后,需要继发性主动脉介入治疗(SAI)的患者是否比不需要SAI的患者生存更差。方法:数据收集自芬兰国家卫生与福利研究所的国家卫生保健登记(CRHC)。所有15岁以上TBAD患者(ICD-10;2000-2019年期间接受TEVAR治疗的患者(I71.01)被纳入研究。回顾性收集资料。对芬兰死因登记官方统计数据进行了数据检索,以确定TBAD患者的死亡日期和原因。结果:2000年至2019年,236例TBAD患者接受了TEVAR作为主要手术治疗。在中位随访时间5.1年期间,45例(17%)患者在初始TEVAR后进行了SAI。单纯接受原发性TEVAR治疗的患者与接受额外SAI治疗的患者的生存率无显著差异(p = 0.063)。两组之间的年龄调整生存率也没有差异。SAI组的中位随访时间明显长于无SAI组(5.9年vs 4.9年,p = 0.047)。两组中最常见的死亡原因是主动脉相关事件(47%)。结论:基于这项研究,SAIs可能不会影响先前接受TEVAR治疗TBAD患者的总生存期。初始TEVAR后的系统随访可能有助于识别可能需要二次手术的TBAD患者。
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
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
37
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Surgery (SJS) is the official peer reviewed journal of the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society. It publishes original and review articles from all surgical fields and specialties to reflect the interests of our diverse and international readership that consists of surgeons from all specialties and continents.
×
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