{"title":"B 型主动脉夹层胸腔内血管主动脉修补术中左锁骨下动脉全经皮原位微针穿刺与烟囱技术的比较","authors":"Peng Ye, Hongfei Miao, Qingle Zeng, Yong Chen","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-10774-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the outcomes of totally percutaneous in situ microneedle puncture for left subclavian artery (LSA) fenestration (ISMF) and chimney technique in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Data on patients who underwent either chimney-TEVAR (n = 89) or ISMF-TEVAR (n = 113) from October 2018 to April 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcomes were mortality and major complications at 30 days and during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The technical success rate was 84.3% in the chimney group and 93.8% in the ISMF group (p = 0.027). The incidence of immediate endoleakage was significantly higher in the chimney than ISMF group (15.7% vs 6.2%, respectively; p = 0.027). The 1- and 3-year survival rates in the chimney and ISMF groups were 98.9% ± 1.1% vs 98.1% ± 0.9% and 86.5% ± 6.3% vs 92.6% ± 4.1%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.715). The 3-year rate of cumulative freedom from branch occlusion in the chimney and ISMF group was 95.4% ± 2.3% vs 100%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.023).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR achieved satisfactory short- and mid-term outcomes for the preservation of the LSA in patients with TBAD. ISMF-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes with higher patency and lower reintervention rates. However, ISMF-TEVAR had longer operation times with higher procedure expenses.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance statement: </strong>When LSA revascularization is required during TEVAR, in situ, fenestration, and chimney techniques are all safe and effective methods; in situ, fenestration-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes, but takes longer and is more complicated.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>LSA revascularization during TEVAR reduces post-operative complication rates. Both in situ ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR are safe and effective techniques for the preservation of the LSA during TEVAR. The chimney technique is associated with a higher incidence of endoleakage and branch occlusion, but ISMF-TEVAR is a more complicated and expensive technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of total percutaneous in situ microneedle puncture and chimney technique for left subclavian artery fenestration in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection.\",\"authors\":\"Peng Ye, Hongfei Miao, Qingle Zeng, Yong Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-024-10774-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the outcomes of totally percutaneous in situ microneedle puncture for left subclavian artery (LSA) fenestration (ISMF) and chimney technique in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Data on patients who underwent either chimney-TEVAR (n = 89) or ISMF-TEVAR (n = 113) from October 2018 to April 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcomes were mortality and major complications at 30 days and during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The technical success rate was 84.3% in the chimney group and 93.8% in the ISMF group (p = 0.027). The incidence of immediate endoleakage was significantly higher in the chimney than ISMF group (15.7% vs 6.2%, respectively; p = 0.027). The 1- and 3-year survival rates in the chimney and ISMF groups were 98.9% ± 1.1% vs 98.1% ± 0.9% and 86.5% ± 6.3% vs 92.6% ± 4.1%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.715). The 3-year rate of cumulative freedom from branch occlusion in the chimney and ISMF group was 95.4% ± 2.3% vs 100%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.023).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR achieved satisfactory short- and mid-term outcomes for the preservation of the LSA in patients with TBAD. ISMF-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes with higher patency and lower reintervention rates. However, ISMF-TEVAR had longer operation times with higher procedure expenses.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance statement: </strong>When LSA revascularization is required during TEVAR, in situ, fenestration, and chimney techniques are all safe and effective methods; in situ, fenestration-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes, but takes longer and is more complicated.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>LSA revascularization during TEVAR reduces post-operative complication rates. Both in situ ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR are safe and effective techniques for the preservation of the LSA during TEVAR. The chimney technique is associated with a higher incidence of endoleakage and branch occlusion, but ISMF-TEVAR is a more complicated and expensive technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10774-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10774-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of total percutaneous in situ microneedle puncture and chimney technique for left subclavian artery fenestration in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection.
Objective: To compare the outcomes of totally percutaneous in situ microneedle puncture for left subclavian artery (LSA) fenestration (ISMF) and chimney technique in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).
Materials and methods: Data on patients who underwent either chimney-TEVAR (n = 89) or ISMF-TEVAR (n = 113) from October 2018 to April 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcomes were mortality and major complications at 30 days and during follow-up.
Results: The technical success rate was 84.3% in the chimney group and 93.8% in the ISMF group (p = 0.027). The incidence of immediate endoleakage was significantly higher in the chimney than ISMF group (15.7% vs 6.2%, respectively; p = 0.027). The 1- and 3-year survival rates in the chimney and ISMF groups were 98.9% ± 1.1% vs 98.1% ± 0.9% and 86.5% ± 6.3% vs 92.6% ± 4.1%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.715). The 3-year rate of cumulative freedom from branch occlusion in the chimney and ISMF group was 95.4% ± 2.3% vs 100%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.023).
Conclusion: Both ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR achieved satisfactory short- and mid-term outcomes for the preservation of the LSA in patients with TBAD. ISMF-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes with higher patency and lower reintervention rates. However, ISMF-TEVAR had longer operation times with higher procedure expenses.
Clinical relevance statement: When LSA revascularization is required during TEVAR, in situ, fenestration, and chimney techniques are all safe and effective methods; in situ, fenestration-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes, but takes longer and is more complicated.
Key points: LSA revascularization during TEVAR reduces post-operative complication rates. Both in situ ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR are safe and effective techniques for the preservation of the LSA during TEVAR. The chimney technique is associated with a higher incidence of endoleakage and branch occlusion, but ISMF-TEVAR is a more complicated and expensive technique.
期刊介绍：
European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field.
This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies.
From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
