改良限制性裸支架(RBS)技术治疗B型主动脉夹层TEVAR后裸支架骨折。

IF 1.7 2区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Journal of Endovascular Therapy Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-02 DOI:10.1177/15266028231170114
Mario Lescan, Mateja Andic, Constantin Bonorden, Julia Schano, Julia Hahn, Christian Schlensak, Migdat Mustafi
{"title":"改良限制性裸支架(RBS)技术治疗B型主动脉夹层TEVAR后裸支架骨折。","authors":"Mario Lescan, Mateja Andic, Constantin Bonorden, Julia Schano, Julia Hahn, Christian Schlensak, Migdat Mustafi","doi":"10.1177/15266028231170114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim was to assess the mid-term aortic remodeling and bare-metal stent (BMS) integrity of the restricted bare stent (RBS) technique reconstruction in aortic dissections.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included prospectively collected patients treated with the modified RBS technique between 2017 and 2020. The preoperative, postoperative, and last follow-up computed tomographic (CT) scans were analyzed in the centerline at the mid-descending, celiac trunk (CeT), and the mid-abdominal levels for false lumen (FL) patency, aortic diameter, and true lumen (TL) diameter changes. Bare-metal stent integrity was assessed in the 3-dimensional multiplanar reformats.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median follow-up of the cohort (n=17) was 26 (11, 45) months. The procedure was mainly performed with the Relay NBS endograft (15/17; 88%) + E-XL BMS (17/17; 100%). Postoperative mortality, paraplegia, stroke, renovisceral vessel loss, and type I and III endoleaks were not observed. BMS fractured in 6 patients (6/17; 36%), damaged the dissection flap in 4/17 (24%), and led to the reperfusion of the FL and re-interventions with TEVAR (4/17; 24%). Two patients without FL reperfusion showed stable CT follow-ups 13 and 17 months after the fracture diagnosis. The TL expansion was seen at all landmarks and peaked in the thoracic aorta (+10; 6, 15; p<0.001). The FL thrombosis after modified RBS was only relevant in the thoracic aorta (p<0.001) and at CeT (p=0.003). The aortic diameter was stable in the thoracic aorta and increased at distal landmarks (CeT [+5; 1, 10; p=0.001]; mid-abdominal [+3; 1, 5; p=0.004]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The modified RBS technique could not stop aortic growth below the diaphragm and prevent new membrane rupture due to the fractures of the BMS and consecutive flap damage with the reperfusion of the FL.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>The treatment of complicated type B aortic dissections with TEVAR has become a standard. Particularly, patients with true lumen collapse and malperfusion may benefit from a more aggressive treatment strategy including proximal TEVAR and distal bare-metal stent implantation to re-open the true lumen and to prevent distal stent-induced new entry. However, this study reports the challenges of this approach with a high rate of bare-metal stent fractures during the follow-up. The fractures that occurred at the site of vertical nitinol bridges led to the dissection membrane ruptures and the reperfusion of the false lumen with consecutive dilatation. A close follow-up is mandatory to detect this complication and to treat the patients with TEVAR extension.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"199-207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bare Stent Fracture After TEVAR With the Modified Restrictive Bare Stent (RBS) Technique in Type B Aortic Dissections.\",\"authors\":\"Mario Lescan, Mateja Andic, Constantin Bonorden, Julia Schano, Julia Hahn, Christian Schlensak, Migdat Mustafi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15266028231170114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim was to assess the mid-term aortic remodeling and bare-metal stent (BMS) integrity of the restricted bare stent (RBS) technique reconstruction in aortic dissections.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included prospectively collected patients treated with the modified RBS technique between 2017 and 2020. The preoperative, postoperative, and last follow-up computed tomographic (CT) scans were analyzed in the centerline at the mid-descending, celiac trunk (CeT), and the mid-abdominal levels for false lumen (FL) patency, aortic diameter, and true lumen (TL) diameter changes. Bare-metal stent integrity was assessed in the 3-dimensional multiplanar reformats.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median follow-up of the cohort (n=17) was 26 (11, 45) months. The procedure was mainly performed with the Relay NBS endograft (15/17; 88%) + E-XL BMS (17/17; 100%). Postoperative mortality, paraplegia, stroke, renovisceral vessel loss, and type I and III endoleaks were not observed. BMS fractured in 6 patients (6/17; 36%), damaged the dissection flap in 4/17 (24%), and led to the reperfusion of the FL and re-interventions with TEVAR (4/17; 24%). Two patients without FL reperfusion showed stable CT follow-ups 13 and 17 months after the fracture diagnosis. The TL expansion was seen at all landmarks and peaked in the thoracic aorta (+10; 6, 15; p<0.001). The FL thrombosis after modified RBS was only relevant in the thoracic aorta (p<0.001) and at CeT (p=0.003). The aortic diameter was stable in the thoracic aorta and increased at distal landmarks (CeT [+5; 1, 10; p=0.001]; mid-abdominal [+3; 1, 5; p=0.004]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The modified RBS technique could not stop aortic growth below the diaphragm and prevent new membrane rupture due to the fractures of the BMS and consecutive flap damage with the reperfusion of the FL.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>The treatment of complicated type B aortic dissections with TEVAR has become a standard. Particularly, patients with true lumen collapse and malperfusion may benefit from a more aggressive treatment strategy including proximal TEVAR and distal bare-metal stent implantation to re-open the true lumen and to prevent distal stent-induced new entry. However, this study reports the challenges of this approach with a high rate of bare-metal stent fractures during the follow-up. The fractures that occurred at the site of vertical nitinol bridges led to the dissection membrane ruptures and the reperfusion of the false lumen with consecutive dilatation. A close follow-up is mandatory to detect this complication and to treat the patients with TEVAR extension.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Endovascular Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"199-207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"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/10.1177/15266028231170114\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/2 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/10.1177/15266028231170114","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价主动脉夹层限制性裸支架(RBS)技术重建中期主动脉重构及裸金属支架(BMS)的完整性。材料和方法:本回顾性队列研究前瞻性收集了2017年至2020年期间接受改良RBS技术治疗的患者。术前、术后和最后随访的计算机断层扫描(CT)在中降、腹腔干(CeT)和腹中水平的中心线上分析假腔(FL)通畅、主动脉直径和真腔(TL)直径的变化。裸金属支架的完整性在三维多平面重构中进行评估。结果:该队列(n=17)的中位随访时间为26(11,45)个月。该手术主要采用Relay NBS内移植物(15/17;88%) + e-xl BMS (17/17;100%)。未观察到术后死亡率、截瘫、中风、肾脏血管丢失和I型和III型内漏。BMS骨折6例(6/17;36%), 4/17(24%)损伤夹层皮瓣,导致FL再灌注和TEVAR再干预(4/17;24%)。2例无FL再灌注的患者在骨折诊断后13个月和17个月CT随访稳定。TL扩张在所有标志处均可见,并在胸主动脉处达到高峰(+10;6, 15;结论:改良的RBS技术不能阻止膈下主动脉的生长,也不能阻止膈下主动脉因BMS断裂和fl再灌注时皮瓣连续损伤而导致的新膜破裂。临床影响:TEVAR治疗复杂的B型主动脉夹层已成为一种标准。特别是,真正的管腔衰竭和灌注不良的患者可能受益于更积极的治疗策略,包括近端TEVAR和远端裸金属支架植入,以重新打开真正的管腔,防止远端支架诱导的新进入。然而,这项研究报告了这种方法的挑战,在随访期间裸金属支架骨折的发生率很高。在垂直镍钛诺桥处发生骨折,导致分离膜破裂,假腔再灌注持续扩张。密切的随访是必要的,以发现这一并发症,并治疗患者的TEVAR延长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bare Stent Fracture After TEVAR With the Modified Restrictive Bare Stent (RBS) Technique in Type B Aortic Dissections.

Purpose: The aim was to assess the mid-term aortic remodeling and bare-metal stent (BMS) integrity of the restricted bare stent (RBS) technique reconstruction in aortic dissections.

Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included prospectively collected patients treated with the modified RBS technique between 2017 and 2020. The preoperative, postoperative, and last follow-up computed tomographic (CT) scans were analyzed in the centerline at the mid-descending, celiac trunk (CeT), and the mid-abdominal levels for false lumen (FL) patency, aortic diameter, and true lumen (TL) diameter changes. Bare-metal stent integrity was assessed in the 3-dimensional multiplanar reformats.

Results: The median follow-up of the cohort (n=17) was 26 (11, 45) months. The procedure was mainly performed with the Relay NBS endograft (15/17; 88%) + E-XL BMS (17/17; 100%). Postoperative mortality, paraplegia, stroke, renovisceral vessel loss, and type I and III endoleaks were not observed. BMS fractured in 6 patients (6/17; 36%), damaged the dissection flap in 4/17 (24%), and led to the reperfusion of the FL and re-interventions with TEVAR (4/17; 24%). Two patients without FL reperfusion showed stable CT follow-ups 13 and 17 months after the fracture diagnosis. The TL expansion was seen at all landmarks and peaked in the thoracic aorta (+10; 6, 15; p<0.001). The FL thrombosis after modified RBS was only relevant in the thoracic aorta (p<0.001) and at CeT (p=0.003). The aortic diameter was stable in the thoracic aorta and increased at distal landmarks (CeT [+5; 1, 10; p=0.001]; mid-abdominal [+3; 1, 5; p=0.004]).

Conclusion: The modified RBS technique could not stop aortic growth below the diaphragm and prevent new membrane rupture due to the fractures of the BMS and consecutive flap damage with the reperfusion of the FL.

Clinical impact: The treatment of complicated type B aortic dissections with TEVAR has become a standard. Particularly, patients with true lumen collapse and malperfusion may benefit from a more aggressive treatment strategy including proximal TEVAR and distal bare-metal stent implantation to re-open the true lumen and to prevent distal stent-induced new entry. However, this study reports the challenges of this approach with a high rate of bare-metal stent fractures during the follow-up. The fractures that occurred at the site of vertical nitinol bridges led to the dissection membrane ruptures and the reperfusion of the false lumen with consecutive dilatation. A close follow-up is mandatory to detect this complication and to treat the patients with TEVAR extension.

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