静脉支架植入术与静脉消融术。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Vascular Pub Date : 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1177/17085381241273222
Ahmad Alsheekh, Pavel Kibrik, Natalie Marks, Enrico Ascher, Anil Hingorani
{"title":"静脉支架植入术与静脉消融术。","authors":"Ahmad Alsheekh, Pavel Kibrik, Natalie Marks, Enrico Ascher, Anil Hingorani","doi":"10.1177/17085381241273222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The minimally invasive procedures of venous ablation and iliac vein stenting are evolving treatment options for venous insufficiency. Yet, there are no studies directly comparing the outcome of these procedures. We performed a survey on patients who had both procedures, to determine if either procedure helped more and if there is any other clinical factor related to the outcome.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We collected data between Jan 2012 and Feb 2019 from 726 patients who failed to improve swelling after conservative management. The patients underwent iliac vein stenting and vein ablations. We recorded patient assessment of the leg immediately after completion of both procedures. Follow-up was performed using in-person questionnaires by asking if improvement in lower extremity swelling occurred and if so, which procedure helped more.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 726 patients who underwent endovenous closure and iliac vein stent placement, 254 (35%) were males. The average age of the patients was 70 (±13.7 SD, range 29-103) years. The presenting symptom (C of CEAP classification) of lower extremity limb venous disease was 34.8%, 44.6%, 5.6%, and 15% for C3-C6, respectively. Patients were asked about swelling, and they stated: swelling is better (605, 83.3%), swelling is not better (118, 16.3%), and not sure if there is any improvement in swelling (3, 0.4%). Patients stated the following completion of both procedures: both procedures equally helped (129, 18%), iliac vein stent superior (167, 23%), endovenous ablation superior (177, 24%), neither helped (112, 16%), and not sure which procedure helped more (141, 19%). After ANOVA, we concluded that older patients (average = 72.5 years) were more often not sure which procedure helped more (<i>p</i> = .024), and younger patients (average = 68.4 years) stated that endovenous ablation helped more (<i>p</i> = .014). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding gender (<i>p</i> = .9), laterality (<i>p</i> = .33), or presenting symptoms scores (<i>p</i> = .9). There was no statistical relationship between the procedure that was performed first and the procedure that helped more (<i>p</i> = 0.095).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this qualitative assessment, preliminary data suggest that the comparative role of iliac vein stent versus endovenous ablation warrants further study. The data were broadly distributed, and neither procedure was superior. In addition, 16% of the patients stated that neither procedure helped. The age of patients may also play a role in their procedure preferences and their subjective assessment for improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":23549,"journal":{"name":"Vascular","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Venous stenting versus venous ablation.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmad Alsheekh, Pavel Kibrik, Natalie Marks, Enrico Ascher, Anil Hingorani\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17085381241273222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The minimally invasive procedures of venous ablation and iliac vein stenting are evolving treatment options for venous insufficiency. Yet, there are no studies directly comparing the outcome of these procedures. We performed a survey on patients who had both procedures, to determine if either procedure helped more and if there is any other clinical factor related to the outcome.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We collected data between Jan 2012 and Feb 2019 from 726 patients who failed to improve swelling after conservative management. The patients underwent iliac vein stenting and vein ablations. We recorded patient assessment of the leg immediately after completion of both procedures. Follow-up was performed using in-person questionnaires by asking if improvement in lower extremity swelling occurred and if so, which procedure helped more.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 726 patients who underwent endovenous closure and iliac vein stent placement, 254 (35%) were males. The average age of the patients was 70 (±13.7 SD, range 29-103) years. The presenting symptom (C of CEAP classification) of lower extremity limb venous disease was 34.8%, 44.6%, 5.6%, and 15% for C3-C6, respectively. Patients were asked about swelling, and they stated: swelling is better (605, 83.3%), swelling is not better (118, 16.3%), and not sure if there is any improvement in swelling (3, 0.4%). Patients stated the following completion of both procedures: both procedures equally helped (129, 18%), iliac vein stent superior (167, 23%), endovenous ablation superior (177, 24%), neither helped (112, 16%), and not sure which procedure helped more (141, 19%). After ANOVA, we concluded that older patients (average = 72.5 years) were more often not sure which procedure helped more (<i>p</i> = .024), and younger patients (average = 68.4 years) stated that endovenous ablation helped more (<i>p</i> = .014). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding gender (<i>p</i> = .9), laterality (<i>p</i> = .33), or presenting symptoms scores (<i>p</i> = .9). There was no statistical relationship between the procedure that was performed first and the procedure that helped more (<i>p</i> = 0.095).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this qualitative assessment, preliminary data suggest that the comparative role of iliac vein stent versus endovenous ablation warrants further study. The data were broadly distributed, and neither procedure was superior. In addition, 16% of the patients stated that neither procedure helped. The age of patients may also play a role in their procedure preferences and their subjective assessment for improvement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vascular\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vascular\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241273222\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241273222","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:静脉消融术和髂静脉支架植入术这两种微创手术是静脉功能不全不断发展的治疗方法。然而,目前还没有直接比较这两种手术效果的研究。我们对接受过这两种手术的患者进行了调查,以确定这两种手术是否更有帮助,以及是否有其他临床因素与手术效果有关:我们在 2012 年 1 月至 2019 年 2 月期间收集了 726 名保守治疗后肿胀仍未改善的患者的数据。这些患者接受了髂静脉支架植入术和静脉消融术。我们记录了患者在完成这两项手术后对腿部的评估。随访采用当面问卷调查的方式进行,询问下肢肿胀是否有所改善,如果有所改善,哪种手术的帮助更大:在接受静脉腔内闭合术和髂静脉支架置入术的 726 名患者中,有 254 名男性(占 35%)。患者的平均年龄为 70 岁(±13.7 SD,范围为 29-103 岁)。下肢静脉疾病的主要症状(CEAP分类中的C)在C3-C6中分别占34.8%、44.6%、5.6%和15%。患者被问及肿胀情况,他们表示:肿胀有所改善(605 人,占 83.3%),肿胀没有改善(118 人,占 16.3%),不确定肿胀是否有所改善(3 人,占 0.4%)。患者对两种手术的完成情况如下:两种手术同样有帮助(129 人,占 18%),髂静脉支架效果更好(167 人,占 23%),静脉内消融效果更好(177 人,占 24%),两种手术都没有帮助(112 人,占 16%),不确定哪种手术帮助更大(141 人,占 19%)。经过方差分析,我们得出结论:年龄较大的患者(平均 72.5 岁)不确定哪种手术帮助更大的比例更高(p = .024),而年轻患者(平均 68.4 岁)表示静脉内消融术帮助更大(p = .014)。两组患者在性别(p = .9)、侧位(p = .33)或症状评分(p = .9)方面无明显差异。先进行的手术与帮助更大的手术之间没有统计学关系(p = 0.095):在这项定性评估中,初步数据表明,髂静脉支架与静脉内消融术的比较作用值得进一步研究。数据分布广泛,两种手术均无优势。此外,16% 的患者表示这两种手术都没有帮助。患者的年龄也可能影响他们对手术的偏好和对改善情况的主观评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Venous stenting versus venous ablation.

Background: The minimally invasive procedures of venous ablation and iliac vein stenting are evolving treatment options for venous insufficiency. Yet, there are no studies directly comparing the outcome of these procedures. We performed a survey on patients who had both procedures, to determine if either procedure helped more and if there is any other clinical factor related to the outcome.

Method: We collected data between Jan 2012 and Feb 2019 from 726 patients who failed to improve swelling after conservative management. The patients underwent iliac vein stenting and vein ablations. We recorded patient assessment of the leg immediately after completion of both procedures. Follow-up was performed using in-person questionnaires by asking if improvement in lower extremity swelling occurred and if so, which procedure helped more.

Results: Of the 726 patients who underwent endovenous closure and iliac vein stent placement, 254 (35%) were males. The average age of the patients was 70 (±13.7 SD, range 29-103) years. The presenting symptom (C of CEAP classification) of lower extremity limb venous disease was 34.8%, 44.6%, 5.6%, and 15% for C3-C6, respectively. Patients were asked about swelling, and they stated: swelling is better (605, 83.3%), swelling is not better (118, 16.3%), and not sure if there is any improvement in swelling (3, 0.4%). Patients stated the following completion of both procedures: both procedures equally helped (129, 18%), iliac vein stent superior (167, 23%), endovenous ablation superior (177, 24%), neither helped (112, 16%), and not sure which procedure helped more (141, 19%). After ANOVA, we concluded that older patients (average = 72.5 years) were more often not sure which procedure helped more (p = .024), and younger patients (average = 68.4 years) stated that endovenous ablation helped more (p = .014). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding gender (p = .9), laterality (p = .33), or presenting symptoms scores (p = .9). There was no statistical relationship between the procedure that was performed first and the procedure that helped more (p = 0.095).

Conclusion: In this qualitative assessment, preliminary data suggest that the comparative role of iliac vein stent versus endovenous ablation warrants further study. The data were broadly distributed, and neither procedure was superior. In addition, 16% of the patients stated that neither procedure helped. The age of patients may also play a role in their procedure preferences and their subjective assessment for improvement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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