用于主动脉弓病变血管内修复的原位和原位穿孔支架移植物的系统性综述和荟萃分析。

IF 1.7 2区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Journal of Endovascular Therapy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-10 DOI:10.1177/15266028231157639
Mourad Boufi, Georgiana Alexandru, Myriam Tarzi, Molka Zlitni, Houda Taghi, Anderson D Loundou
{"title":"用于主动脉弓病变血管内修复的原位和原位穿孔支架移植物的系统性综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mourad Boufi, Georgiana Alexandru, Myriam Tarzi, Molka Zlitni, Houda Taghi, Anderson D Loundou","doi":"10.1177/15266028231157639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To gain insight into safety and efficacy of in situ and ex-situ fenestration techniques for total endovascular arch repair. The term ex-situ fenestration is referring to physician-modified stent-graft technique where fenestration is performed on a back table.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic search was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analyses) guidelines from 2000 to 2020. The main outcomes measured were 30-day mortality, stroke, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies were eligible: 7 ex-situ fenestration (189 patients) and 8 in-situ fenestration (149 patients). In ex-situ group, dissection was the main pathology treated and proximal sealing zones were Z0 or 1 in 53.5% of patients. In in-situ group, dissection and aneurysm were equally represented in around 40% of cases and proximal sealing zones were Z0 or 1 in 46.5% of patients. Cumulative 30-day all-cause mortality was similar in both groups: 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7%-8.2%) and 3.8% (95% CI: 1.6%-8.9%), respectively, in ex-situ and in-situ groups and stroke rate of 2.8% (95% CI: 1.1%-7%) and 5.3% (95% CI: 2.6%-10.5%). After a 11.1 ± 2.6 months mean follow-up for ex-situ and 16.7 ± 2.3 months for in-situ group, there were 5.2 and 1.4 reinterventions per 100 patients-years, respectively, for ex-situ and in situ groups. Aortic-related mortality rates of, respectively, 3.2% (95% CI: 1.3%-7.4%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 0.9%-7.3%) were noted in ex-situ and in situ groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reported data show favorable short-term results of both ex-situ and in-situ fenestration techniques with low mortality and strokes rates. However, durability is still questionable given the lack of long-term data. Both options may have their place in arch repair beyond the spectrum of emergent and urgent cases, on condition that results stand the test of time.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>In situ and ex-situ fenestration techniques have been initially developed to overcome emergency or as a bail out techniques however giving the promessing favorable short term results indications of these techniques may be extended to elective patients ineligible to customized stent-grafts and possibly in the futur to more elective cases as an option for total endovascular arch repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1041-1051"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Ex-Situ and In-Situ Fenestrated Stent-Grafts for Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Pathologies.\",\"authors\":\"Mourad Boufi, Georgiana Alexandru, Myriam Tarzi, Molka Zlitni, Houda Taghi, Anderson D Loundou\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15266028231157639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To gain insight into safety and efficacy of in situ and ex-situ fenestration techniques for total endovascular arch repair. The term ex-situ fenestration is referring to physician-modified stent-graft technique where fenestration is performed on a back table.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic search was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analyses) guidelines from 2000 to 2020. The main outcomes measured were 30-day mortality, stroke, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies were eligible: 7 ex-situ fenestration (189 patients) and 8 in-situ fenestration (149 patients). In ex-situ group, dissection was the main pathology treated and proximal sealing zones were Z0 or 1 in 53.5% of patients. In in-situ group, dissection and aneurysm were equally represented in around 40% of cases and proximal sealing zones were Z0 or 1 in 46.5% of patients. Cumulative 30-day all-cause mortality was similar in both groups: 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7%-8.2%) and 3.8% (95% CI: 1.6%-8.9%), respectively, in ex-situ and in-situ groups and stroke rate of 2.8% (95% CI: 1.1%-7%) and 5.3% (95% CI: 2.6%-10.5%). After a 11.1 ± 2.6 months mean follow-up for ex-situ and 16.7 ± 2.3 months for in-situ group, there were 5.2 and 1.4 reinterventions per 100 patients-years, respectively, for ex-situ and in situ groups. Aortic-related mortality rates of, respectively, 3.2% (95% CI: 1.3%-7.4%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 0.9%-7.3%) were noted in ex-situ and in situ groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reported data show favorable short-term results of both ex-situ and in-situ fenestration techniques with low mortality and strokes rates. However, durability is still questionable given the lack of long-term data. Both options may have their place in arch repair beyond the spectrum of emergent and urgent cases, on condition that results stand the test of time.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>In situ and ex-situ fenestration techniques have been initially developed to overcome emergency or as a bail out techniques however giving the promessing favorable short term results indications of these techniques may be extended to elective patients ineligible to customized stent-grafts and possibly in the futur to more elective cases as an option for total endovascular arch repair.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Endovascular Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1041-1051\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Endovascular Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028231157639\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028231157639","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:了解原位和体外瓣膜技术用于全血管内弓修复术的安全性和有效性。原位瓣膜术指的是在后台上进行瓣膜穿刺的医生改良支架移植技术:方法:根据 PRISMA(系统综述和元分析的首选报告项目)指南,对 2000 年至 2020 年的研究进行了电子检索。衡量的主要结果是 30 天死亡率、中风、主动脉相关死亡率和再介入率:15项研究符合条件:7项原位瓣膜置换术(189名患者)和8项原位瓣膜置换术(149名患者)。在原位组中,夹层是主要的治疗病理,53.5%的患者近端密封区为Z0或1。在原位组中,约40%的病例中夹层和动脉瘤的比例相同,46.5%的患者近端封闭区为Z0或1。两组患者的 30 天累积全因死亡率相似:原位外组和原位内组分别为 3.8%(95% 置信区间 [CI]:1.7%-8.2%)和 3.8%(95% CI:1.6%-8.9%),中风率分别为 2.8%(95% CI:1.1%-7%)和 5.3%(95% CI:2.6%-10.5%)。原位手术组平均随访时间为(11.1 ± 2.6)个月,原位手术组平均随访时间为(16.7 ± 2.3)个月。原位手术组和原位手术组的主动脉相关死亡率分别为3.2%(95% CI:1.3%-7.4%)和2.6%(95% CI:0.9%-7.3%):报告的数据显示,原位和原位栅栏技术的短期效果良好,死亡率和中风率都很低。然而,由于缺乏长期数据,其耐用性仍值得怀疑。除了急诊和紧急病例外,这两种方法在足弓修复中都有其用武之地,前提是结果经得起时间的考验:临床影响:原位和非原位瓣膜技术最初是为了克服急症或作为一种救助技术而开发的,但由于短期效果良好,这些技术的适应症可能会扩展到不符合定制支架移植条件的择期患者,将来可能会扩展到更多的择期病例,作为全血管内弓修复的一种选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Ex-Situ and In-Situ Fenestrated Stent-Grafts for Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Pathologies.

Purpose: To gain insight into safety and efficacy of in situ and ex-situ fenestration techniques for total endovascular arch repair. The term ex-situ fenestration is referring to physician-modified stent-graft technique where fenestration is performed on a back table.

Methods: Electronic search was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analyses) guidelines from 2000 to 2020. The main outcomes measured were 30-day mortality, stroke, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates.

Results: Fifteen studies were eligible: 7 ex-situ fenestration (189 patients) and 8 in-situ fenestration (149 patients). In ex-situ group, dissection was the main pathology treated and proximal sealing zones were Z0 or 1 in 53.5% of patients. In in-situ group, dissection and aneurysm were equally represented in around 40% of cases and proximal sealing zones were Z0 or 1 in 46.5% of patients. Cumulative 30-day all-cause mortality was similar in both groups: 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7%-8.2%) and 3.8% (95% CI: 1.6%-8.9%), respectively, in ex-situ and in-situ groups and stroke rate of 2.8% (95% CI: 1.1%-7%) and 5.3% (95% CI: 2.6%-10.5%). After a 11.1 ± 2.6 months mean follow-up for ex-situ and 16.7 ± 2.3 months for in-situ group, there were 5.2 and 1.4 reinterventions per 100 patients-years, respectively, for ex-situ and in situ groups. Aortic-related mortality rates of, respectively, 3.2% (95% CI: 1.3%-7.4%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 0.9%-7.3%) were noted in ex-situ and in situ groups.

Conclusion: The reported data show favorable short-term results of both ex-situ and in-situ fenestration techniques with low mortality and strokes rates. However, durability is still questionable given the lack of long-term data. Both options may have their place in arch repair beyond the spectrum of emergent and urgent cases, on condition that results stand the test of time.

Clinical impact: In situ and ex-situ fenestration techniques have been initially developed to overcome emergency or as a bail out techniques however giving the promessing favorable short term results indications of these techniques may be extended to elective patients ineligible to customized stent-grafts and possibly in the futur to more elective cases as an option for total endovascular arch repair.

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
5.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Endovascular Therapy (formerly the Journal of Endovascular Surgery) was established in 1994 as a forum for all physicians, scientists, and allied healthcare professionals who are engaged or interested in peripheral endovascular techniques and technology. An official publication of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists (ISEVS), the Journal of Endovascular Therapy publishes peer-reviewed articles of interest to clinicians and researchers in the field of peripheral endovascular interventions.
×
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