中华普通外科杂志
中華普通外科雜誌
중화보통외과잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF GENERAL SURGERY
2012年
12期
988-991
,共4页
王丰艺%张健%夏茜%韩彦槊%刘志敏%张晓宇%伦语%吴小雨%辛世杰%段志泉
王豐藝%張健%夏茜%韓彥槊%劉誌敏%張曉宇%倫語%吳小雨%辛世傑%段誌泉
왕봉예%장건%하천%한언삭%류지민%장효우%륜어%오소우%신세걸%단지천
主动脉疾病%支架%药物疗法
主動脈疾病%支架%藥物療法
주동맥질병%지가%약물요법
Aortic diseases%Stents%Drug therapy
目的 总结急性Stanford B型主动脉夹层疾病(aortic dissection,AD)的临床特点,对比腔内修复治疗(endovascular repair,EVR)与保守治疗效果. 方法 回顾性分析2004年1月至2010年10月收治的116例急性Stanford B型AD患者的临床资料,分为EVR组(60例)和保守治疗组(56例),其中EVR组采用覆膜支架植入治疗AD;保守组采用降压镇痛等对症治疗.对2组治疗效果进行统计学评估和比较.结果 116例急性Stanford B型AD患者主要临床表现为:胸背部疼痛(74.1%),CTA检查是确诊主动脉夹层的主要手段.保守组56例患者,入院30 d死亡率为16.1%;EVR组60例患者,移植物均成功释放,30 d死亡率为1.7%明显低于保守组(P<0.05).保守组和EVR组随访率分别为71.4%和86.7%,平均随访时间分别为(38±16)个月和(35±14)个月,5年生存率保守组和EVR组分别为87.5%和88.5%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 腔内支架植入治疗是急性Stanford B型主动夹层的首选方法,能够提高患者30 d生存率;保守治疗也仍然是一种治疗选择.
目的 總結急性Stanford B型主動脈夾層疾病(aortic dissection,AD)的臨床特點,對比腔內脩複治療(endovascular repair,EVR)與保守治療效果. 方法 迴顧性分析2004年1月至2010年10月收治的116例急性Stanford B型AD患者的臨床資料,分為EVR組(60例)和保守治療組(56例),其中EVR組採用覆膜支架植入治療AD;保守組採用降壓鎮痛等對癥治療.對2組治療效果進行統計學評估和比較.結果 116例急性Stanford B型AD患者主要臨床錶現為:胸揹部疼痛(74.1%),CTA檢查是確診主動脈夾層的主要手段.保守組56例患者,入院30 d死亡率為16.1%;EVR組60例患者,移植物均成功釋放,30 d死亡率為1.7%明顯低于保守組(P<0.05).保守組和EVR組隨訪率分彆為71.4%和86.7%,平均隨訪時間分彆為(38±16)箇月和(35±14)箇月,5年生存率保守組和EVR組分彆為87.5%和88.5%,差異無統計學意義(P>0.05).結論 腔內支架植入治療是急性Stanford B型主動夾層的首選方法,能夠提高患者30 d生存率;保守治療也仍然是一種治療選擇.
목적 총결급성Stanford B형주동맥협층질병(aortic dissection,AD)적림상특점,대비강내수복치료(endovascular repair,EVR)여보수치료효과. 방법 회고성분석2004년1월지2010년10월수치적116례급성Stanford B형AD환자적림상자료,분위EVR조(60례)화보수치료조(56례),기중EVR조채용복막지가식입치료AD;보수조채용강압진통등대증치료.대2조치료효과진행통계학평고화비교.결과 116례급성Stanford B형AD환자주요림상표현위:흉배부동통(74.1%),CTA검사시학진주동맥협층적주요수단.보수조56례환자,입원30 d사망솔위16.1%;EVR조60례환자,이식물균성공석방,30 d사망솔위1.7%명현저우보수조(P<0.05).보수조화EVR조수방솔분별위71.4%화86.7%,평균수방시간분별위(38±16)개월화(35±14)개월,5년생존솔보수조화EVR조분별위87.5%화88.5%,차이무통계학의의(P>0.05).결론 강내지가식입치료시급성Stanford B형주동협층적수선방법,능구제고환자30 d생존솔;보수치료야잉연시일충치료선택.
Objectives To compare endovascular aortic repair (EVR) and medical therapy for acute type B aortic dissection (AD) in terms of treatment results.Methods From January 2004 to October 2010 116 cases were collected and were divided into two groups,with treatment of EVR (n =60)and medical therapy (n = 56).Treatment outcomes were assessed.Results Clinical manifestations of AD are complex and variable,with the most common symptom being pain on chest and back (74.1%).CTA is the most valuable method in confirming the diagnosis of aortic dissection.In conservative group of 56 patients admitted to hospital,30-day mortality rate was 16.1%.In EVR group of 60 patients with grafts successfully released,the 30-day mortality was 1.7%.There is significant difference between the two groups on mortality rate during 30-day(P <0.05).Follow-up rate in conservative group and the EVR group was 71.4% and 86.7%,with average follow-up time of (38 ± 16) months and (35 ± 14) months.The 5-year survival rates were 87.5% and 88.5% respectively in conservative group and EVR group (P > 0.05).Conclusions EVR is considered to be the first choice for acute Stanford type B dissection.EVR can improve patients' 30-day survival,though long term result is comparable with that of conservative treatment.