目的:考虑到持久性,遗传性主动脉病变(GA)患者的胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)存在争议。我们描述了GA患者TEVAR后的特征和结果。
方法:所有在2010-2023年期间在VQI接受TEVAR的患者均被确定并分类为是否患有GA。人口统计,基线,和程序特征进行了组间比较。多变量logistic回归用于评估GA与术后结局的独立关联。使用Kaplan-Meier方法和多变量Cox回归分析评估5年生存率和2年再干预措施。
结果:在19,340名患者中,304(1.6%)患有GA(87%马凡人;9%Loeys-Dietz;和4%VascularEhlers-Danlos)。与非GA相比,GA患者较年轻(50[37-72]岁vs.70[61-77]年),更常见于急性夹层(28%与18%),夹层后动脉瘤(48%vs.17%),有症状表现(50%vs.39%),并且不太可能患有退行性动脉瘤(18%vs.47%)或PAU[+IMH](3%与13%)(所有p<.001)。GA患者更有可能事先修复升主动脉/弓(开放:56%vs.11%;p<.001;血管内5.6%vs.2.1%;p=.017)或降胸主动脉(开放:12%vs.2%;p=.007;血管内8.2%vs.3.6%;p=.011)。在先前的腹部肾上修复中没有发现显着差异,然而,GA患者先前进行了更多的开放性肾下修复(5.3%与3.2%),但先前的血管内肾下修复较少(3.3%vs.5.5%)(所有p<0.05)。调整人口统计后,合并症,和疾病特征,患有GA的患者围手术期死亡率的几率相似(4.6%vs.7.0%;AOR:1.1[95CI:0.57-1.9];p=0.75),任何住院并发症(26%vs.23%;AOR:1.24[0.92-1.6];p=.14),或住院再干预(13%vs.8.3%;与非GA患者相比,aOR:1.25[0.84-1.8];p=.25)。然而,GA患者术后血管加压药的可能性更高(33%vs.27%;aOR:1.44[1.1-1.9];p=.006)和输血(25%vs.23%;aOR:1.39[1.03-1.9];p=.006)。GA患者的2年再干预率较高(25%vs.13%;AHR:1.99[1.4-2.9];p<.001),但5年生存率相似(81%vs.74%;aHR:1.02[0.70-1.5];p=.1)。
结论:GA患者的TEVAR最初似乎是安全的,在院内并发症的几率相似,院内再干预,和围手术期死亡率,与非GA患者相比,5年死亡率的风险也相似。然而,GA患者2年再干预率较高。未来的研究应评估TEVAR术后的长期耐久性,与推荐的开放修复相比,以适当权衡GA患者血管内治疗的风险和益处。
OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with genetic aortopathies (GA) is controversial, given concerns of durability. We describe characteristics and outcomes after TEVAR in patients with GA.
METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2023 in the Vascular Quality Iniatitive were identified and categorized as having a GA or not. Demographics, baseline, and procedural characteristics were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of GA with postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate 5-year survival and 2-year reinterventions.
RESULTS: Of 19,340 patients, 304 (1.6%) had GA (87% Marfan syndrome, 9% Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 4% vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome). Compared with patients without GA, patients with GA were younger (50 years [interquartile range, 37-72 years] vs 70 years [interquartile range, 61-77 years]), more often presented with acute dissection (28% vs 18%), postdissection aneurysm (48% vs 17%), had a symptomatic presentation (50% vs 39%), and were less likely to have degenerative aneurysms (18% vs 47%) or penetrating aortic ulcer (and intramural hematoma) (3% vs 13%) (all P < .001). Patients with GA were more likely to have prior repair of the ascending aorta/arch (open, 56% vs 11% [P < .001]; endovascular, 5.6% vs 2.1% [P = .017]) or the descending thoracic aorta (open, 12% vs 2% [P = .007]; endovascular, 8.2% vs 3.6% [P = .011]). No significant differences were found in prior abdominal suprarenal repairs; however, patients with GA had more prior open infrarenal repairs (5.3% vs 3.2%), but fewer prior endovascular infrarenal repairs (3.3% vs 5.5%) (all P < .05). After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and disease characteristics, patients with GA had similar odds of perioperative mortality (4.6% vs 7.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.9; P = .75), any in-hospital complication (26% vs 23%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.6; P = .14), or in-hospital reintervention (13% vs 8.3%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.80; P = .25) compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had a higher likelihood of postoperative vasopressors (33% vs 27%; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .006) and transfusion (25% vs 23%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.9; P = .006). The 2-year reintervention rates were higher in patients with GA (25% vs 13%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9; P < .001), but 5-year survival was similar (81% vs 74%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.50; P = .1).
CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR for patients with GA seemed to be safe initially, with similar odds for in-hospital complications, in-hospital reinterventions, and perioperative mortality, as well as similar hazards for 5-year mortality compared with patients without GA. However, patients with GA had higher 2-year reintervention rates. Future studies should assess long-term durability after TEVAR compared with the recommended open repair to appropriately weigh the risks and benefits of endovascular treatment in patients with GA.