胸腔内血管主动脉修复术中过大尺寸对无并发症 B 型主动脉夹层长期预后的影响:单中心回顾性研究

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-20 DOI:10.1177/15266028231166282
Dongqiao Xiang, Bin Chai, Jia Huang, Huimin Liang, Bin Liang, Huangxuan Zhao, Chuansheng Zheng
{"title":"胸腔内血管主动脉修复术中过大尺寸对无并发症 B 型主动脉夹层长期预后的影响:单中心回顾性研究","authors":"Dongqiao Xiang, Bin Chai, Jia Huang, Huimin Liang, Bin Liang, Huangxuan Zhao, Chuansheng Zheng","doi":"10.1177/15266028231166282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of oversizing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on early and long-term survival and major adverse events in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January 2010 and December 2018, 226 patients who were diagnosed with uncomplicated TBAD and received TEVAR were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into ≤5% oversizing (n=153) and >5% oversizing (n=73) groups. Primary end points were all-cause and aortic-related mortalities. Secondary end points were procedure-related complications, including retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD), endoleak, distal stent-induced new entry (SINE), and late reintervention. All-cause and aortic-related mortalities were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival method, while procedure-related complications were evaluated using a competing risk model with all-cause death as a competing risk.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean oversizing was 2.1%±1.5% in the ≤5% oversizing group and 9.6%±4.1% in the >5% oversizing group. Differences in the 30-day mortality and adverse events between the 2 groups were statistically insignificant. The freedom from all-cause mortality was comparable between the ≤5% oversizing group and the >5% oversizing group (≤5%: 93.3% at 5 years, >5%: 92.3% at 5 years, p=0.957). No significant difference was observed between both groups in the freedom from aortic-related mortality (≤5%: 95.0% at 5 years, >5%: 96.7% at 5 years, p=0.928). However, the competing risk analyses revealed that the cumulative incidence of RTAD was statistically significantly greater in the >5% oversizing group than in the ≤5% oversizing group (≤5%: 1(0.7%) at 5 years, >5%: 6(6.9%) at 5 years, p=0.007). All RTADs occurred within a year of TEVAR. The differences in the cumulative incidences of type I endoleak, distal SINE, and late reintervention were not significant between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The differences in the 5-year all-cause mortality and aortic-related mortality between patients with uncomplicated TBAD who received TEVAR with ≤5% oversizing and those who got TEVAR with >5% oversizing were insignificant. However, oversizing >5% was considerably associated with an increased risk of RTAD within a year of TEVAR, suggesting that oversizing ≤5% may be the appropriate size for TEVAR in patients with uncomplicated TBAD.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>For patients with uncomplicated TBAD, choosing oversizing ≤5% in endovascular treatment is beneficial to reduce the risk of postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection. This finding provides a basis for stent size selection in endovascular repair. In addition, one year after TEVAR is the main time period for postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection, and attention should be paid to the management and follow-up of this period.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Oversizing in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair on Long-Term Outcomes in Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Dongqiao Xiang, Bin Chai, Jia Huang, Huimin Liang, Bin Liang, Huangxuan Zhao, Chuansheng Zheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15266028231166282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of oversizing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on early and long-term survival and major adverse events in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January 2010 and December 2018, 226 patients who were diagnosed with uncomplicated TBAD and received TEVAR were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into ≤5% oversizing (n=153) and >5% oversizing (n=73) groups. Primary end points were all-cause and aortic-related mortalities. Secondary end points were procedure-related complications, including retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD), endoleak, distal stent-induced new entry (SINE), and late reintervention. All-cause and aortic-related mortalities were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival method, while procedure-related complications were evaluated using a competing risk model with all-cause death as a competing risk.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean oversizing was 2.1%±1.5% in the ≤5% oversizing group and 9.6%±4.1% in the >5% oversizing group. Differences in the 30-day mortality and adverse events between the 2 groups were statistically insignificant. The freedom from all-cause mortality was comparable between the ≤5% oversizing group and the >5% oversizing group (≤5%: 93.3% at 5 years, >5%: 92.3% at 5 years, p=0.957). No significant difference was observed between both groups in the freedom from aortic-related mortality (≤5%: 95.0% at 5 years, >5%: 96.7% at 5 years, p=0.928). However, the competing risk analyses revealed that the cumulative incidence of RTAD was statistically significantly greater in the >5% oversizing group than in the ≤5% oversizing group (≤5%: 1(0.7%) at 5 years, >5%: 6(6.9%) at 5 years, p=0.007). All RTADs occurred within a year of TEVAR. The differences in the cumulative incidences of type I endoleak, distal SINE, and late reintervention were not significant between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The differences in the 5-year all-cause mortality and aortic-related mortality between patients with uncomplicated TBAD who received TEVAR with ≤5% oversizing and those who got TEVAR with >5% oversizing were insignificant. However, oversizing >5% was considerably associated with an increased risk of RTAD within a year of TEVAR, suggesting that oversizing ≤5% may be the appropriate size for TEVAR in patients with uncomplicated TBAD.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>For patients with uncomplicated TBAD, choosing oversizing ≤5% in endovascular treatment is beneficial to reduce the risk of postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection. This finding provides a basis for stent size selection in endovascular repair. In addition, one year after TEVAR is the main time period for postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection, and attention should be paid to the management and follow-up of this period.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028231166282\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028231166282","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估胸腔内血管主动脉修复术(TEVAR)中过大尺寸对无并发症B型主动脉夹层(TBAD)患者的早期和长期存活率以及主要不良事件的影响:回顾性分析2010年1月至2018年12月期间确诊为无并发症TBAD并接受TEVAR的226例患者。患者被分为过大≤5%组(n=153)和过大>5%组(n=73)。主要终点是全因死亡率和主动脉相关死亡率。次要终点是手术相关并发症,包括逆行 A 型主动脉夹层 (RTAD)、内漏、远端支架诱发新入口 (SINE) 和晚期再介入。全因死亡率和主动脉相关死亡率采用 Kaplan-Meier 生存法进行评估,手术相关并发症采用竞争风险模型进行评估,全因死亡为竞争风险:过大≤5%组的平均过大率为2.1%±1.5%,过大>5%组的平均过大率为9.6%±4.1%。两组之间的 30 天死亡率和不良事件差异在统计学上不显著。超大≤5%组和超大>5%组的全因死亡率不相上下(≤5%:5年后93.3%,>5%:5年后92.3%,P=0.957)。两组在避免主动脉相关死亡率方面无明显差异(≤5%:5 年后为 95.0%,>5%:5 年后为 96.7%,P=0.928)。然而,竞争风险分析显示,超大 5% 组的 RTAD 累计发生率在统计学上明显高于超大 ≤5% 组(≤5%:5 年后为 1(0.7%);>5%:5 年后为 1(0.7%)):5年后为1(0.7%),>5%组为6(6.9%):5年内发生6例(6.9%),P=0.007)。所有 RTAD 均发生在 TEVAR 术后一年内。两组I型内漏、远端SINE和晚期再介入的累积发生率差异不显著:结论:接受过大≤5% TEVAR的无并发症TBAD患者与接受过大>5% TEVAR的患者在5年全因死亡率和主动脉相关死亡率方面的差异并不显著。然而,过大>5%与TEVAR术后一年内发生RTAD的风险增加有很大关系,这表明过大≤5%可能是无并发症TBAD患者接受TEVAR的合适尺寸:临床影响:对于无并发症的 TBAD 患者,在血管内治疗中选择≤5% 的过大尺寸有利于降低术后逆行 A 型主动脉夹层的风险。这一发现为血管内修复中支架尺寸的选择提供了依据。此外,TEVAR术后一年是术后逆行A型主动脉夹层的主要时间段,应重视这一时期的管理和随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Impact of Oversizing in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair on Long-Term Outcomes in Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of oversizing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on early and long-term survival and major adverse events in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

Methods: Between January 2010 and December 2018, 226 patients who were diagnosed with uncomplicated TBAD and received TEVAR were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into ≤5% oversizing (n=153) and >5% oversizing (n=73) groups. Primary end points were all-cause and aortic-related mortalities. Secondary end points were procedure-related complications, including retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD), endoleak, distal stent-induced new entry (SINE), and late reintervention. All-cause and aortic-related mortalities were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival method, while procedure-related complications were evaluated using a competing risk model with all-cause death as a competing risk.

Results: Mean oversizing was 2.1%±1.5% in the ≤5% oversizing group and 9.6%±4.1% in the >5% oversizing group. Differences in the 30-day mortality and adverse events between the 2 groups were statistically insignificant. The freedom from all-cause mortality was comparable between the ≤5% oversizing group and the >5% oversizing group (≤5%: 93.3% at 5 years, >5%: 92.3% at 5 years, p=0.957). No significant difference was observed between both groups in the freedom from aortic-related mortality (≤5%: 95.0% at 5 years, >5%: 96.7% at 5 years, p=0.928). However, the competing risk analyses revealed that the cumulative incidence of RTAD was statistically significantly greater in the >5% oversizing group than in the ≤5% oversizing group (≤5%: 1(0.7%) at 5 years, >5%: 6(6.9%) at 5 years, p=0.007). All RTADs occurred within a year of TEVAR. The differences in the cumulative incidences of type I endoleak, distal SINE, and late reintervention were not significant between the 2 groups.

Conclusion: The differences in the 5-year all-cause mortality and aortic-related mortality between patients with uncomplicated TBAD who received TEVAR with ≤5% oversizing and those who got TEVAR with >5% oversizing were insignificant. However, oversizing >5% was considerably associated with an increased risk of RTAD within a year of TEVAR, suggesting that oversizing ≤5% may be the appropriate size for TEVAR in patients with uncomplicated TBAD.

Clinical impact: For patients with uncomplicated TBAD, choosing oversizing ≤5% in endovascular treatment is beneficial to reduce the risk of postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection. This finding provides a basis for stent size selection in endovascular repair. In addition, one year after TEVAR is the main time period for postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection, and attention should be paid to the management and follow-up of this period.

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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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