Transcatheter closure versus surgical closure for ruptured aortic sinus aneurysm: a comparative study
10.3969/j.issn.1008-794X.2018.01.003
- VernacularTitle:主动脉窦瘤破裂经导管封堵与外科手术治疗对比研究
- Author:
Rui NIU
1
;
Cheng WANG
;
Yong XIA
;
Jiali LIU
;
Shouquan CHENG
;
Guoxiang WANG
;
Zhongxin ZHOU
;
Bo JIANG
Author Information
1. 221003江苏,徐州医科大学附属医院心内科
- Keywords:
ruptured aortic sinus aneurysm;
transcatheter closure;
surgical treatment
- From:
Journal of Interventional Radiology
2018;27(1):9-12
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the safety and clinical efficacy of transcatheter closure for ruptured aortic sinus aneurysm (RASA) with those of surgical treatment.Methods A total of 31 successive patients with RASA,who were treated in a single center during the period from October 2003 to May 2017,were enrolled in this study.Among them,11 patients received transcatheter closure therapy,their mean age was (36.64±10.87) years old;20 patients received surgical closure,their mean age was (28.90± 10.06) years old.The technical success rate,complications,residual shunt,operation time,hospitalization days,amount of blood transfusion,medical expenses,etc.were compared between the two groups.Results No statistically significant differences in age,sex and preoperative cardiac functional grading established by the Heart Disease Association of New York (NYHA) existed between the two groups (P＞0.05).The technical success rates in transcatheter closure group and surgical closure group were 100％ (11/11) and 95％ (19/20)respectively (P＞0.05).The amounts of blood transfusion in transcatheter closure group and surgical closure group were 0 ml and (427.25±331.36) ml respectively (P＜0.01).The time spent for operation in transcatheter closure group and surgical closure group was (60.00±00.00) min and (205.50±129.35) min respectively (P＜0.05).Days staying in intensive care unit (ICU) in transcatheter closure group and surgical closure group were 0 day and (1.50±0.61) days respectively (P＜0.01).The residual shunt rates in transcatheter closure group and surgical closure group were 9.09％ (1/11) and 10.00％ (2/20) respectively.None perioperative death occurred in both groups.No statistically significant differences in hospitalization days and in medical expenses existed between the two groups (P＞0.05).Conclusion Both transcatheter closure and surgical closure are safe and effective for the treatment of ruptured RASA,although transcatheter closure therapy has more advantageous in aspect of minimally-invasive management,operative time and length of hospital stay.For patients with a RASA which position is suitable for percutaneous interventional management,transcatheter closure therapy should be employed as a preferred therapy.
