首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery >Superior nationwide outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysm in 11,669 patients.
【24h】

Superior nationwide outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysm in 11,669 patients.

机译:在全国范围内,对于11669例孤立性降主动脉瘤,行血管内修复与开放修复相比较,在全国范围内具有优越的治疗效果。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) was introduced in 2005 to treat descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. Little is known about TEVAR's nationwide effect on patient outcomes. We evaluated nationwide data regarding the short-term outcomes of TEVAR and open aortic repair (OAR) procedures performed in the United States during a 2-year period. METHODS: From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, we identified patients who had undergone surgery for an isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysm from 2006 to 2007. Patients with aneurysm rupture, aortic dissection, vasculitis, connective tissue disorders, or concomitant aneurysms in other aortic segments were excluded. Of the remaining 11,669 patients, 9106 had undergone conventional OAR and 2563 had undergone TEVAR. Hierarchic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of TEVAR versus OAR after adjusting for confounding factors. The primary outcomes were mortality and the hospital length of stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes were the discharge status, morbidity, and hospital charges. RESULTS: The patients who had undergone TEVAR were older (69.5 +/- 12.7 vs 60.2 +/- 14.2 years; P < .001) and had higher Deyo comorbidity scores (4.6 +/- 1.8 vs 3.3 +/- 1.8; P < .001). The unadjusted LOS was shorter for the TEVAR patients (7.7 +/- 11 vs 8.8 +/- 7.9 days), but the unadjusted mortality was similar (TEVAR 2.3% vs OAR 2.3%; P = 1.0). The proportion of nonelective interventions was similar between the 2 groups (TEVAR 15.9% vs OAR 15.8%; P = .9). The TEVAR and OAR techniques produced similar risk-adjusted mortality rates; however, the TEVAR patients had 60% fewer complications overall (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .001) and a shorter LOS (by 1.3 days). The TEVAR patients' hospital charges were greater by Dollars 6713 (95% confidence interval Dollars 1869 to Dollars 11,556; P < .001). However, the TEVAR patients were 4 times more likely to have a routine discharge to home. CONCLUSIONS: The nationwide data on TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms have associated this procedure with better in-hospital outcomes than OAR, even though TEVAR was selectively performed in patients who were almost 1 decade older than the OAR patients. Compared with OAR, TEVAR was associated with a shorter hospital LOS and fewer complications but significantly greater hospital charges.
机译:目的:2005年引入胸腔内血管瘤修复术(TEVAR)以治疗降主动脉瘤。关于TEVAR在全国范围内对患者预后的影响知之甚少。我们评估了有关TEVAR和开放性主动脉修复(OAR)程序在美国进行的为期2年的短期结果的全国性数据。方法:从全国住院患者样本数据中,我们确定了从2006年至2007年接受手术治疗的孤立性胸主动脉下降瘤患者。患有动脉瘤破裂,主动脉夹层,血管炎,结缔组织疾病或其他主动脉段并发动脉瘤的患者排除在外。在其余的11669名患者中,有9106名接受了常规OAR,2563名接受了TEVAR。调整混杂因素后,采用层次回归分析评估TEVAR与OAR的效果。主要结果是死亡率和住院时间(LOS)。次要结果是出院状态,发病率和住院费用。结果:接受过TEVAR的患者年龄较大(69.5 +/- 12.7 vs 60.2 +/- 14.2岁; P <.001),并且Deyo合并症评分更高(4.6 +/- 1.8 vs 3.3 +/- 1.8; P < .001)。 TEVAR患者的未经调整的LOS较短(7.7 +/- 11天与8.8 +/- 7.9天),但未经调整的死亡率相似(TEVAR 2.3%对OAR 2.3%; P = 1.0)。两组之间非选择干预的比例相似(TEVAR 15.9%vs OAR 15.8%; P = .9)。 TEVAR和OAR技术产生了类似的风险调整后死亡率。但是,TEVAR患者的并发症总体减少了60%(几率0.39; P <.001),LOS缩短了1.3天。 TEVAR患者的住院费用增加了6713美元(95%的置信区间1869美元至11,556美元; P <.001)。但是,TEVAR患者例行出院的可能性要高4倍。结论:降胸主动脉瘤的全国TEVAR数据已证明该手术比OAR住院效果更好,尽管TEVAR是在比OAR年龄大近十岁的患者中选择性进行的。与OAR相比,TEVAR与医院LOS较短,并发症少,但住院费用明显增加有关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号