• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Vascular and endovascular surgery >Outcomes After Use of Aortouniiliac Endoprosthesis Versus Modular or Unibody Bifurcated Endoprostheses for Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
【24h】

Outcomes After Use of Aortouniiliac Endoprosthesis Versus Modular or Unibody Bifurcated Endoprostheses for Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

机译：使用AortouniIac内置后的结果与模块化或单体分叉的内置假瘤发生破裂的腹膜主动脉瘤的血管内修复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objectives: Outcomes after endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) have been widely published. There is, however, controversy on the role of the use of aortouniiliac endoprosthesis (AUI) versus modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis (MUB) for repair of rAAAs. We study and compare 30-day outcomes after use of AUI and MUB for all rAAAs focusing specifically on patients with instability. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent EVAR for rAAA (n = 425) using AUI (n = 55; 12.9%) and MUB (n = 370; 87.1%) were identified from the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005-2010) database. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: No significant difference (P >.5) was seen in comorbidities between patients who underwent EVAR with AUI or MUB; there was also no change in endoprosthesis use from 2005 to 2010 (P =.7). Patients who underwent EVAR with AUI more commonly had a history of peripheral arterial procedure (10.9% vs 4.6%; P=.053) and preoperative transfusion of >4 U packed red blood cells (18.2% vs 6.8%; P=.004). Use of AUI versus MUB was associated with more 30-day wound complications (16.4% vs 6.2%; P=.01), return to operating room (38.2% vs 20.0%; P=.003), and mortality (34.5% vs 21.4%; P =.03). On multivariable analysis, use of AUI was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.3). On subanalysis of the cohort for only the patients with unstable rAAA (n = 159; AUI = 29 and MUB = 130), 30-day mortality for AUI versus MUB was still higher but not statistically significant (44.8% vs 32.3%; P =.2). Conclusion: Endovascular repair for ruptured AAA using aortouniliac endoprosthesis is associated with higher 30-day mortality than using modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis.
机译：目的：腹血管修复后的结果（Raaas）破裂破裂（RaaAs）已被广泛发表。然而，关于使用主动脉内髂内华素（AUI）的角色对模块化或单次分叉内置假体（MUB）的作用进行了争议，用于修复RAAAS。我们在使用AUI和Mub后，为所有RAAAS专注于不稳定的患者，研究和比较了30天的结果。材料和方法：使用AUI（n = 55; 12.9％）和MUB（n = 370％）和MUB（n = 370; 87.1％）接受RAAA（n = 425）的患者被美国外科医生的国家外科院校2005-2010）数据库。进行了不可变量和多变量的逻辑回归分析。结果：在接受AUI或MUB的evar的患者之间，没有显着差异（p> .5）; 2005年至2010年的内置假期使用也没有变化（p = .7）。接受澳元的患者更常见的是外周动脉术的历史（10.9％vs 4.6％; p = .053）和术前输血> 4 U包装红细胞（18.2％Vs 6.8％; p = .004） 。使用AUI与MUB的使用与伤口并发症更长（16.4％VS 6.2％; P = .01），返回手术室（38.2％Vs 20.0％; p = .003）和死亡率（34.5％VS 21.4％; p = .03）。在多变分析中，AUI的使用与30天死亡率的风险增加有关（赔率比：2.4; 95％置信区间：1.1-5.3）。在队列的群组中仅对不稳定的RAAA（n = 159; aui = 29和mub = 130）进行群组，AUI与MUB的30天死亡率仍然更高但没有统计学意义（44.8％Vs 32.3％; P = .2）。结论：使用Aortouniliac内置假体的破裂AAA血管内修复与30天的死亡率相关，而不是使用模块化或单体分叉的内华术。

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