4.5 Article

The impact of exposure technique on perioperative complications in patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

期刊

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 1141-1146

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.12.025

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of exposure technique on perioperative complications in patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Methods: Using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database, the study identified patients subjected to open AAA repair from January 2003 to July 2014 and divided them into two aortic exposure groups, retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP). Multivariable analysis was performed to compare the incidence of cardiac events (myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, heart failure), prolonged intubation, renal dysfunction, and mortality, adjusting for between-group differences identified on univariate analysis. Results: Open AAA repair was performed in 3530 patients, using RP in 26% and TP in 74%. The RP group had a higher rate of suprarenal aortic clamp (60.9% vs 30.2%; P < .001), higher proportion of high-risk patients as stratified by the Vascular Study Group of New England Cardiac Risk Index (25.6% vs 22.2%; P =. 038), and lower rate of iliac aneurysms (18.0% vs 31.2%; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, RP was associated with a lower incidence of cardiac events (12.2% vs 16.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.88; P = .009) and renal dysfunction (13.3% vs 16.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.97; P = . 011). No difference in respiratory complications or mortality was identified. Conclusions: Despite increased utilization of suprarenal aortic clamp during elective open AAA repair, the RP technique was associated with a lower risk-adjusted incidence of cardiac and renal complications compared with the TP technique.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据