Clinical efficacy of endovascular interventional therapy for spontaneous isolated superior mesen-teric artery dissection
10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20240417-00210
- VernacularTitle:自发性孤立性肠系膜上动脉夹层腔内介入治疗的临床疗效
- Author:
Yu LI
1
;
Rongjie ZHANG
;
Wei SUN
;
Yuxuan XIAO
;
Xianru BI
;
Yingxue HAO
Author Information
1. 陆军军医大学第一附属医院血管外科，重庆 400038
- Keywords:
Spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection;
Endovascular interventional therapy;
Conservative therapy;
Vascular remodeling
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery
2024;23(6):845-852
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy of endovascular interventional therapy for spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection(SISMAD).Methods:The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinical data of 87 patients with SISMAD who were admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University from March 2012 to March 2023 were collected. There were 80 males and 7 femals, aged 54(49,61)years. Of 87 patients, 55 cases undergoing conservative therapy were allocated into conservative therapy group and 32 cases under-going endovascular interventional therapy were allocated into endovascular interventional therapy group. Observation indicators: (1) clinical characteristics; (2) treatment; (3) follow-up. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, and comparison between groups was conducted using the t test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M( Q1, Q3), and comparison between groups was conducted using the rank sum test. Count data were represented as absolute numbers and comparison between groups was conducted using the chi-square test or Fisher exact probability. Results:(1) clinical characteristics. There were significant differences in the cases with symptoms, percentage of neutrophils between the conservative therapy group and the endovascular interventional therapy group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the proportion of Yun classification between the two groups ( P>0.05). (2)Treatment. There were significant differences in the complete vascular remodeling, duration of hospital stay, and total expenses between the conservative therapy group and the endovascular interventional therapy group ( χ2=23.752, t=-4.213, -16.421, P<0.05). There were 34 patients in the conservative therapy group and 24 patients in the endovascular interventional therapy group with relieved abdominal pain, respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05). For symptomatic patients in the conservative therapy group, symptoms including abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hematochezia were relieved or disappeared, and no intestinal ischemia or rupture occurred. For patients in the endovascular interventional therapy group, 30 cases were implanted stents, the operation time was 115(86,155)minutes, volume of intraoperative blood loss was 5(5,10)mL, dose of contrast media was (200±51)mL. There were 23, 8 and 1 cases with the contrast medium as Iodoxanol, Ioprosamide, Iodohexanol, respectively. About the surgical methods, 14 patients received single bare stent implantation, 3 cases received bare stent-assisted coil embolization, 10 cases received multiple bare stent implantation, 3 cases received covered stent implantation, 2 cases received angiography alone. A total of 39 self-expandable bare metal stents and 3 self-expandable covered stents were implanted. The diameter and length of the stents were (6.5±1.0)mm and (69±23)mm, respectively. Two asymptomatic patients had failure in endovascular interventional therapy and underwent superior mesenteric artery angiography. For the endovascular interventional therapy group, 92.3%(24/26) of patients were relieved abdominal pain and 2 patients with abdominal pain were improved after symptomatic treatment. (3) Follow-up. All the 87 patients were followed up for 12(4,24)months, without recurrent abdominal pain or secondary intervention. During the follow-up, 82 patients underwent computed tomography angiography or ultrasonography, and 5 patients had no available results. There was no SISMAD related death or superior mesenteric artery rupture. Eight patients in the conservative therapy group achieved complete vascular remodeling, versus 21 cases in the endovascular interventional therapy group, showing a significant difference between the two groups ( χ2=23.752, P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared with conservative therapy, patients undergoing endovascular interventional therapy for SISMAD has loner hospital stay, higher total costs, higher complete vascular remodeling rate. There is no recurrent abdominal pain in two methods.
