Failure Modes of Endovascular Therapy for Spontaneous Isolated Superior Mesenteric Artery Dissection.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Jianping Xiong, Shilu Zhao, Qichen Feng, Qijia Liu, Guangxin Yang, Jinman Zhuang, Tianrun Li, Changming Wang, Jingyuan Luan
{"title":"Failure Modes of Endovascular Therapy for Spontaneous Isolated Superior Mesenteric Artery Dissection.","authors":"Jianping Xiong, Shilu Zhao, Qichen Feng, Qijia Liu, Guangxin Yang, Jinman Zhuang, Tianrun Li, Changming Wang, Jingyuan Luan","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2026.09.045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanisms of failure after endovascular stenting for symptomatic spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (SISMAD) remain poorly characterized. We analyzed device- and procedure-related failure modes in a 17-year single-center cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed 117 consecutive patients with SISMAD (2008-2025). Patients stented for persistent or escalating pain despite conservative management formed the cohort; catheter-infusion and open-surgery patients were analyzed separately. Lesions were classified by Yun morphology. Failure modes were classified a priori as type I (intraprocedural technical failure), type II (thrombotic events occurring after the procedure), and type III (in-stent restenosis or intimal hyperplasia at ≥6 months). Patency and reinterventions were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two patients underwent endovascular therapy (28 stenting, 4 catheter-directed infusion). In the stent cohort, uncomplicated technical success was 82.1% (23/28). Type I failures occurred in 17.9% (5/28), dominated by false-lumen deployment (10.7%) clustered in Yun III occlusions (50.0% vs. 9.1%; P = 0.050). Type II events (3 weeks; 24 months) were rescued by reintervention. Type III events developed in 22.7% (5/22), confined to multi-stent constructs (45.5% vs. 0%; P = 0.035). Primary patency was 81.8% (18/22) at a median 19-month imaging follow-up; secondary patency was 100% after 3 reinterventions. Greater baseline true-lumen stenosis and Yun III morphology predicted composite events. No patient died; the only bowel resection preceded secondary stenting.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Endovascular therapy for SISMAD fails in characteristic, morphology-dependent patterns. The proposed three-type classification is exploratory and requires validation in larger cohorts.</p>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":"626-638"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2026.09.045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mechanisms of failure after endovascular stenting for symptomatic spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (SISMAD) remain poorly characterized. We analyzed device- and procedure-related failure modes in a 17-year single-center cohort.

Methods: We reviewed 117 consecutive patients with SISMAD (2008-2025). Patients stented for persistent or escalating pain despite conservative management formed the cohort; catheter-infusion and open-surgery patients were analyzed separately. Lesions were classified by Yun morphology. Failure modes were classified a priori as type I (intraprocedural technical failure), type II (thrombotic events occurring after the procedure), and type III (in-stent restenosis or intimal hyperplasia at ≥6 months). Patency and reinterventions were recorded.

Results: Thirty-two patients underwent endovascular therapy (28 stenting, 4 catheter-directed infusion). In the stent cohort, uncomplicated technical success was 82.1% (23/28). Type I failures occurred in 17.9% (5/28), dominated by false-lumen deployment (10.7%) clustered in Yun III occlusions (50.0% vs. 9.1%; P = 0.050). Type II events (3 weeks; 24 months) were rescued by reintervention. Type III events developed in 22.7% (5/22), confined to multi-stent constructs (45.5% vs. 0%; P = 0.035). Primary patency was 81.8% (18/22) at a median 19-month imaging follow-up; secondary patency was 100% after 3 reinterventions. Greater baseline true-lumen stenosis and Yun III morphology predicted composite events. No patient died; the only bowel resection preceded secondary stenting.

Conclusion: Endovascular therapy for SISMAD fails in characteristic, morphology-dependent patterns. The proposed three-type classification is exploratory and requires validation in larger cohorts.

自发性孤立性肠系膜上动脉夹层血管内治疗的失败模式。
背景:有症状自发性孤立性肠系膜上动脉夹层(SISMAD)血管内支架植入术失败的机制尚不清楚。我们分析了17年单中心队列中与器械和手术相关的失效模式。方法:我们回顾了117例连续的SISMAD患者(2008-2025)。因持续或不断升级的疼痛而接受支架治疗的患者组成了队列;导管输注和开放手术患者分别进行分析。根据Yun形态学对病变进行分类。失败模式被先验地分为I型(术中技术失败)、II型(术后发生血栓事件)和III型(≥6个月支架内再狭窄或内膜增生)。记录通畅和再干预情况。结果:32例患者接受了血管内治疗,其中支架植入28例,导管定向输注4例。在支架组中,单纯技术成功率为82.1%(23/28)。I型失败发生在17.9%(5/28),以假腔部署(10.7%)为主,聚集在Yun III型闭塞中(50.0% vs 9.1%; P = 0.050)。II型事件(3周,24个月)通过再干预恢复。III型事件发生率为22.7%(5/22),局限于多支架结构(45.5% vs 0%; P = 0.035)。中位影像学随访19个月时,原发性通畅率为81.8% (18/22);3次再干预后,二次通畅率为100%。更大的基线真腔狭窄和Yun III形态预测复合事件。无患者死亡;唯一的肠切除术在二次支架置入术之前。结论:血管内治疗SISMAD在特征性、形态学依赖模式上失败。提出的三类型分类是探索性的,需要在更大的队列中进行验证。
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
3.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
603
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Vascular Surgery, published eight times a year, invites original manuscripts reporting clinical and experimental work in vascular surgery for peer review. Articles may be submitted for the following sections of the journal: Clinical Research (reports of clinical series, new drug or medical device trials) Basic Science Research (new investigations, experimental work) Case Reports (reports on a limited series of patients) General Reviews (scholarly review of the existing literature on a relevant topic) Developments in Endovascular and Endoscopic Surgery Selected Techniques (technical maneuvers) Historical Notes (interesting vignettes from the early days of vascular surgery) Editorials/Correspondence
×
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
小红书