Tiếp cận toàn diện bệnh lý động mạch chủ: kinh nghiệm tại trung tâm tim mạch BV đại học y dược Tp.hcm

Tuan Anh Vo, Hoang Dinh Nguyen

Main Article Content

Abstract

Background – Objectives: Aortic disease, oftenly seen in the elderly, is a severe condition with high mortality and high surgical risk. Treatment modalities consists of surgery and endovascular repair, each has advantages and disadvantages. We summarized our experiences in treating aortic disease at the Heart Center, University Medical Center at Ho Chi Minh City Method: We prospective reviewed patients underwent aortic surgery and endovascular treatment at the University Medical Center at Ho Chi Minh City from 08/2014 to 08/2019. Results: 67 patients underwent aortic surgery at our center, group mean age was 65.6, male:female ratio was 1.4:1. 28 cases were acute loạiA dissection, the other 39 patients were diagnosed with aortic aneurysms at different part of the aorta. Early mortality was 10.4%, including 4 arch replacement, 1 Bentall and 2 thoracoabdominal aneurysms. 112 patients were treated endovascularly, group mean age was 77.6, male:female ratio was 1.6:1. Early mortality was 9.8%, 10 endoleak was recorded (8.9%)1 Conclusions: In our experiences with aortic procedures, the outcomes are slightly better in the endovascular group, comparing to the surgical cohort. A holistic approach is required to provide the best option for patients with this severe condition..


 

Article Details

References

1. Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, Bossone E, et al. (2014). 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: Document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 35(41):2873-926.
2. Al-Jubouri M, Comerota AJ, Thakur S, Aziz F, et al. (2013). Reintervention after EVAR and open surgical repair of AAA: a 15- year experience. Ann Surg. 258(4):652-7; discussion 657-8.
3. Patel R, Sweeting MJ, Powell JT, Greenhalgh RM, et al. (2016). Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in 15-years' follow-up of the UK endovascular aneurysm repair trial 1 (EVAR trial 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 388(10058):2366-2374.
4. Oliveira-Pinto J, Oliveira N, BastosGoncalves F, Hoeks S, et al. (2017). Long-term results of outside "instructions for use" EVAR. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 58(2):252-260.
5. Cheng D, Martin J, Shennib H, Dunning J, et al. (2010). Endovascular aortic repair versus open surgical repair for descending thoracic aortic disease a systematic review and metaanalysis of comparative studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 55(10):986-1001.
6. Parmer SS, Carpenter JP, Stavropoulos SW, Fairman RM, et al. (2006). Endoleaks after endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 44(3):447-52.
7. Yoshitake A, Hachiya T, Okamoto K, Kitahara H, et al. (2016). Postoperative Stroke after Debranching with Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 36:132-138.
8. Gupta PK, Ramanan B, Engelbert TL, Tefera G, et al. (2014). A comparison of open surgery versus endovascular repair of unstable ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 60(6):1439-45.
9. Jonker FH, Verhagen HJ, Lin PH, Heijmen RH, et al. (2011). Open surgery versus endovascular repair of ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 53(5):1210-6.
10. Chen Y, Zhang S, Liu L, Lu Q, et al. (2017). Retrograde Type A Aortic Dissection After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 6(9).
11. Canaud L, Alric P, Gandet T, Albat B, et al. (2011). Surgical conversion after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 142(5):1027-31.