Elliott A Orloff, Li Ding, Jeniann Yi, Sukgu M Han, Gregory A Magee
{"title":"无并发症急性B型主动脉夹层早期胸腔血管内主动脉修复术后再入院与最佳药物治疗的比较","authors":"Elliott A Orloff, Li Ding, Jeniann Yi, Sukgu M Han, Gregory A Magee","doi":"10.1177/17085381251379293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThere is a lack of consensus on the benefit of early thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) over medical management for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). The aim of this study is to compare readmissions of TEVAR versus medical management as the initial treatment strategy for uncomplicated aTBAD using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD).MethodsThe NRD was created under the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, comprising over half of the U.S. inpatient population. Patients admitted for uncomplicated aTBAD were queried from the NRD from 2016 to 2018. Risk of index admission mortality, spinal cord ischemia, stroke, and overall major complication; 90-day readmission and 90-day treatment failure, between TEVAR and medical management alone.ResultsA total of 12,645 patients with an uncomplicated aTBAD were identified (TEVAR 12% and medical management 88%). Overall major complications during index admission were higher in the medical management group (27% vs 40%, <i>p</i> < .0001). On multivariate analysis TEVAR was associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.47, <i>p</i> < .0001), but a significantly higher rate of spinal cord ischemia (OR: 2.49, <i>p</i> < .0001), with no difference in stroke (OR: 0.93, <i>p</i> = .73). 90-day readmission rates were high but were not significantly different between treatment types (22% vs 25%, OR: 0.88, <i>p</i> = .14). Similarly, TEVAR was not associated with a lower rate of 90-day treatment failure (OR: 0.61, <i>p</i> = .22). Four TEVAR (0.3%) and 40 medical management (0.5%) patients were readmitted for treatment failure due to retrograde type A dissection.ConclusionsTEVAR for uncomplicated aTBAD was not associated with a lower 90-day readmission rate. Similarly, TEVAR was not associated with a lower rate of 90-day treatment failure. These findings provide further evidence to the equipoise of treatment options and support the need for the randomized trials currently ongoing in the U.S. and Europe investigating outcomes of TEVAR versus medical management for the treatment of uncomplicated aTBAD.</p>","PeriodicalId":23549,"journal":{"name":"Vascular","volume":" ","pages":"17085381251379293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Readmission following early thoracic endovascular aortic repair compared to optimal medical treatment for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection.\",\"authors\":\"Elliott A Orloff, Li Ding, Jeniann Yi, Sukgu M Han, Gregory A Magee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17085381251379293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundThere is a lack of consensus on the benefit of early thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) over medical management for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). The aim of this study is to compare readmissions of TEVAR versus medical management as the initial treatment strategy for uncomplicated aTBAD using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD).MethodsThe NRD was created under the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, comprising over half of the U.S. inpatient population. Patients admitted for uncomplicated aTBAD were queried from the NRD from 2016 to 2018. Risk of index admission mortality, spinal cord ischemia, stroke, and overall major complication; 90-day readmission and 90-day treatment failure, between TEVAR and medical management alone.ResultsA total of 12,645 patients with an uncomplicated aTBAD were identified (TEVAR 12% and medical management 88%). Overall major complications during index admission were higher in the medical management group (27% vs 40%, <i>p</i> < .0001). On multivariate analysis TEVAR was associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.47, <i>p</i> < .0001), but a significantly higher rate of spinal cord ischemia (OR: 2.49, <i>p</i> < .0001), with no difference in stroke (OR: 0.93, <i>p</i> = .73). 90-day readmission rates were high but were not significantly different between treatment types (22% vs 25%, OR: 0.88, <i>p</i> = .14). Similarly, TEVAR was not associated with a lower rate of 90-day treatment failure (OR: 0.61, <i>p</i> = .22). Four TEVAR (0.3%) and 40 medical management (0.5%) patients were readmitted for treatment failure due to retrograde type A dissection.ConclusionsTEVAR for uncomplicated aTBAD was not associated with a lower 90-day readmission rate. Similarly, TEVAR was not associated with a lower rate of 90-day treatment failure. These findings provide further evidence to the equipoise of treatment options and support the need for the randomized trials currently ongoing in the U.S. and Europe investigating outcomes of TEVAR versus medical management for the treatment of uncomplicated aTBAD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vascular\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17085381251379293\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vascular\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381251379293\",\"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/10.1177/17085381251379293","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:对于无并发症的急性B型主动脉夹层(aTBAD),早期胸腔血管内主动脉修复(TEVAR)比医学治疗的益处缺乏共识。本研究的目的是利用全国再入院数据库(NRD)比较TEVAR再入院与医疗管理作为简单aTBAD的初始治疗策略。方法NRD是在医疗成本和利用项目下创建的,该项目包括超过一半的美国住院患者。对2016年至2018年NRD收治的无并发症aTBAD患者进行了查询。入院死亡率、脊髓缺血、脑卒中和总体主要并发症的风险;90天再入院和90天治疗失败,在TEVAR和单独医疗管理之间。结果共发现12645例无并发症aTBAD患者(TEVAR 12%,医疗管理88%)。医疗管理组住院时主要并发症发生率较高(27% vs 40%, p < 0.0001)。在多变量分析中,TEVAR与较低的死亡率相关(OR: 0.47, p < 0.0001),但与脊髓缺血率相关(OR: 2.49, p < 0.0001),与卒中无差异(OR: 0.93, p = 0.73)。90天再入院率较高,但不同治疗类型间无显著差异(22% vs 25%, OR: 0.88, p = 0.14)。同样,TEVAR与较低的90天治疗失败率无关(OR: 0.61, p = 0.22)。4例TEVAR患者(0.3%)和40例医疗管理患者(0.5%)因治疗失败而再次入院。结论非复杂性aTBAD患者的star与较低的90天再入院率无关。同样,TEVAR与较低的90天治疗失败率无关。这些发现为治疗方案的均衡性提供了进一步的证据,并支持目前正在美国和欧洲进行的随机试验的必要性,研究TEVAR与医学管理治疗无并发症aTBAD的结果。
Readmission following early thoracic endovascular aortic repair compared to optimal medical treatment for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection.
BackgroundThere is a lack of consensus on the benefit of early thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) over medical management for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). The aim of this study is to compare readmissions of TEVAR versus medical management as the initial treatment strategy for uncomplicated aTBAD using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD).MethodsThe NRD was created under the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, comprising over half of the U.S. inpatient population. Patients admitted for uncomplicated aTBAD were queried from the NRD from 2016 to 2018. Risk of index admission mortality, spinal cord ischemia, stroke, and overall major complication; 90-day readmission and 90-day treatment failure, between TEVAR and medical management alone.ResultsA total of 12,645 patients with an uncomplicated aTBAD were identified (TEVAR 12% and medical management 88%). Overall major complications during index admission were higher in the medical management group (27% vs 40%, p < .0001). On multivariate analysis TEVAR was associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.47, p < .0001), but a significantly higher rate of spinal cord ischemia (OR: 2.49, p < .0001), with no difference in stroke (OR: 0.93, p = .73). 90-day readmission rates were high but were not significantly different between treatment types (22% vs 25%, OR: 0.88, p = .14). Similarly, TEVAR was not associated with a lower rate of 90-day treatment failure (OR: 0.61, p = .22). Four TEVAR (0.3%) and 40 medical management (0.5%) patients were readmitted for treatment failure due to retrograde type A dissection.ConclusionsTEVAR for uncomplicated aTBAD was not associated with a lower 90-day readmission rate. Similarly, TEVAR was not associated with a lower rate of 90-day treatment failure. These findings provide further evidence to the equipoise of treatment options and support the need for the randomized trials currently ongoing in the U.S. and Europe investigating outcomes of TEVAR versus medical management for the treatment of uncomplicated aTBAD.
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.