慢性残留主动脉夹层DeBakey I型的临时延长诱导完全附着主动脉修复的5年疗效。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Yi-Chun Lin, Chiao-Po Hsu, Chun-Yang Huang
{"title":"慢性残留主动脉夹层DeBakey I型的临时延长诱导完全附着主动脉修复的5年疗效。","authors":"Yi-Chun Lin, Chiao-Po Hsu, Chun-Yang Huang","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2025.05.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Reintervention for residual aortic dissection DeBakey type I is a complex and controversial topic. Endovascular bare metal stent (BMS) use may be an alternative option for abdominal aorta remodeling, but evidence supporting its efficacy is still limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study investigated the effects of BMS in the abdominal aorta. Patients who initially underwent emergent surgical procedures, such as ascending aortic grafting, the Bentall procedure, or valve-sparing ascending aortic repair, and later received reintervention surgeries during follow-up, including traditional total arch replacement or hybrid endovascular arch debranching combined with thoracic endovascular aortic repair, were enrolled. Patients were categorized into two groups: a non-BMS group and BMS group. Outcomes were analyzed over a 5-year follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 22 patients received a BMS, whereas 22 patients did not. In the abdominal aorta segment, the BMS group had significantly greater true lumen expansion and increased false lumen thrombosis compared with the non-BMS group at 5 years of follow-up (p<0.001<sup>∗</sup> for true lumen expansion; p=0.024<sup>∗</sup> for thrombosis). In addition, positive abdominal aortic remodeling was observed more frequently in the BMS group than in the non-BMS group (5 vs. 0 patients, p=0.048<sup>∗</sup>).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>During the 5-year observation period, abdominal BMS effectively and consistently promoted true lumen expansion, increased false lumen thrombosis, and resulted in positive aortic remodeling. However, these radiologic improvements did not translate into significant differences in 5-year overall survival or freedom from reintervention. Nonetheless, this approach may be a viable option for abdominal aortic remodeling in the chronic phase.</p>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Five-year outcome of provisional extension to induce complete attachment aortic repair for chronic residual aortic dissection DeBakey type I.\",\"authors\":\"Yi-Chun Lin, Chiao-Po Hsu, Chun-Yang Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.avsg.2025.05.036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Reintervention for residual aortic dissection DeBakey type I is a complex and controversial topic. Endovascular bare metal stent (BMS) use may be an alternative option for abdominal aorta remodeling, but evidence supporting its efficacy is still limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study investigated the effects of BMS in the abdominal aorta. Patients who initially underwent emergent surgical procedures, such as ascending aortic grafting, the Bentall procedure, or valve-sparing ascending aortic repair, and later received reintervention surgeries during follow-up, including traditional total arch replacement or hybrid endovascular arch debranching combined with thoracic endovascular aortic repair, were enrolled. Patients were categorized into two groups: a non-BMS group and BMS group. Outcomes were analyzed over a 5-year follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 22 patients received a BMS, whereas 22 patients did not. In the abdominal aorta segment, the BMS group had significantly greater true lumen expansion and increased false lumen thrombosis compared with the non-BMS group at 5 years of follow-up (p<0.001<sup>∗</sup> for true lumen expansion; p=0.024<sup>∗</sup> for thrombosis). In addition, positive abdominal aortic remodeling was observed more frequently in the BMS group than in the non-BMS group (5 vs. 0 patients, p=0.048<sup>∗</sup>).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>During the 5-year observation period, abdominal BMS effectively and consistently promoted true lumen expansion, increased false lumen thrombosis, and resulted in positive aortic remodeling. However, these radiologic improvements did not translate into significant differences in 5-year overall survival or freedom from reintervention. Nonetheless, this approach may be a viable option for abdominal aortic remodeling in the chronic phase.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8061,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of vascular surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-29\",\"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.2025.05.036\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2025.05.036","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

摘要

目的:DeBakey I型残余主动脉夹层的再介入治疗是一个复杂而有争议的话题。血管内裸金属支架(BMS)可能是腹主动脉重构的另一种选择,但支持其疗效的证据仍然有限。方法:研究BMS对腹主动脉的影响。患者最初接受紧急外科手术,如升主动脉移植,本特尔手术,或保留瓣膜的升主动脉修复,后来在随访期间接受再干预手术,包括传统的全弓置换术或混合血管内弓去分支联合胸椎血管内主动脉修复术。患者分为两组:非BMS组和BMS组。结果分析了5年的随访期。结果:22例患者接受BMS治疗,22例患者未接受BMS治疗。在腹主动脉段,与非BMS组相比,BMS组在5年的随访中有更大的真腔扩张和更多的假腔血栓形成(p∗);血栓形成P =0.024 *)。此外,BMS组比非BMS组更频繁地观察到腹主动脉重构阳性(5比0例,p=0.048∗)。结论:在5年的观察期内,腹部BMS有效且持续地促进真腔扩张,增加假腔血栓形成,导致主动脉重构阳性。然而,这些放射学上的改善并没有转化为5年总生存率或免于再干预的显著差异。尽管如此,这种方法可能是慢性腹主动脉重构的可行选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Five-year outcome of provisional extension to induce complete attachment aortic repair for chronic residual aortic dissection DeBakey type I.

Objectives: Reintervention for residual aortic dissection DeBakey type I is a complex and controversial topic. Endovascular bare metal stent (BMS) use may be an alternative option for abdominal aorta remodeling, but evidence supporting its efficacy is still limited.

Methods: This study investigated the effects of BMS in the abdominal aorta. Patients who initially underwent emergent surgical procedures, such as ascending aortic grafting, the Bentall procedure, or valve-sparing ascending aortic repair, and later received reintervention surgeries during follow-up, including traditional total arch replacement or hybrid endovascular arch debranching combined with thoracic endovascular aortic repair, were enrolled. Patients were categorized into two groups: a non-BMS group and BMS group. Outcomes were analyzed over a 5-year follow-up period.

Results: A total of 22 patients received a BMS, whereas 22 patients did not. In the abdominal aorta segment, the BMS group had significantly greater true lumen expansion and increased false lumen thrombosis compared with the non-BMS group at 5 years of follow-up (p<0.001 for true lumen expansion; p=0.024 for thrombosis). In addition, positive abdominal aortic remodeling was observed more frequently in the BMS group than in the non-BMS group (5 vs. 0 patients, p=0.048).

Conclusions: During the 5-year observation period, abdominal BMS effectively and consistently promoted true lumen expansion, increased false lumen thrombosis, and resulted in positive aortic remodeling. However, these radiologic improvements did not translate into significant differences in 5-year overall survival or freedom from reintervention. Nonetheless, this approach may be a viable option for abdominal aortic remodeling in the chronic phase.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信