Assuntos
Arteriopatias Oclusivas , Humanos , Arteriopatias Oclusivas/diagnóstico por imagem , Arteriopatias Oclusivas/etiologia , Arteriopatias Oclusivas/cirurgia , Claudicação Intermitente/diagnóstico , Claudicação Intermitente/etiologia , Claudicação Intermitente/cirurgia , Artéria Poplítea/diagnóstico por imagem , Artéria Poplítea/cirurgiaAssuntos
Procedimentos Endovasculares/instrumentação , Isquemia Mesentérica/terapia , Oclusão Vascular Mesentérica/terapia , Circulação Esplâncnica , Stents , Doença Crônica , Circulação Colateral , Feminino , Humanos , Isquemia Mesentérica/diagnóstico por imagem , Isquemia Mesentérica/fisiopatologia , Oclusão Vascular Mesentérica/diagnóstico por imagem , Oclusão Vascular Mesentérica/fisiopatologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
(1) Background: Endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with a reduction in early morbidity and mortality compared with open repair. Procedures performed under hypnosis might represent an alternative to further reduce the risks related to general anesthesia (GA). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hypnosis and local anesthesia during EVAR. (2) Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent EVAR or fenestrated/branched EVAR (f/bEVAR) under hypnosis and local anesthesia (n = 28) between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively studied and matched to control patients who underwent the same interventions under GA. (3) Results: There was neither a significant difference in the length of ICU stay (p = 0.06), nor in the occurrence of endoleaks, reintervention, and 30-day mortality rate (p = 1.00, 0.73, and 0.24, respectively). The hypnosis group had lower use of norepinephrine (maximum dose 0.04 ± 0.1 vs. 1.2 ± 4.0 mg·h-1, p < 0.001), shorter procedure duration (181.2 ± 71.4 vs. 214.3 ± 79.6 h, p = 0.04), and shorter length of stay (5.4 ± 3.2 vs. 8.4 ± 5.9 days, p = 0.002). (4) Conclusions: In this pioneering study, hypnosis during EVAR appears feasible and safe. It is associated with lower intraoperative use of norepinephrine, as well as procedure duration and length of in-hospital stay.
RESUMO
Objective: Due to its favorable outcome regarding late morbidity and mortality, thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is becoming more popular for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD). This study aimed to compare preemptive endovascular treatment and optimal medical treatment (OMT) and OMT alone in patients presenting uncomplicated TBAD with predictors of aortic progression. Design: Retrospective multicenter study. Methods: We analyzed patients with uncomplicated TBAD and risk factors of progression in two French academic centers. Aortic events [defined as aortic-related (re)intervention or aortic-related death after initial hospitalization], postoperative complications, non-aortic events, and radiologic aortic progression and remodeling were recorded and analyzed. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Between 2011 and 2021, preemptive endovascular procedures at the acute and early subacute phase (<30 days) were performed on 24 patients (group 1) and OMT alone on 26 patients (group 2). With a mean follow-up of 38.08 ± 24.53 months, aortic events occurred in 20.83% of patients from group 1 and 61.54% of patients from group 2 (p < .001). No patient presented aortic-related death during follow-up. There were no differences in postoperative events (p = 1.00) and non-aortic events (p = 1.00). OMT patients had significantly more aneurysmal progression of the thoracic aorta (p < .001) and maximal aortic diameter (p < .001). Aortic remodeling was found in 91.67% of patients in group 1 and 42.31% of patients in group 2 (p < .001). A subgroup analysis of patients in group 1 showed that patients treated with preemptive TEVAR and STABILISE had reduced maximum aortic diameters at the 1-year (p = .010) and last follow-up (p = .030) compared to those in patients treated with preemptive TEVAR alone. Conclusion: Preemptive treatment of uncomplicated TBAD with risk factors of progression reduces the risk of long-term aortic events. Over 60% of medically treated patients will require intervention during follow-up, with no benefit in terms of postoperative events. Even after surgical treatment, patients in the OMT group had significantly more aneurysmal progression, along with poorer aortic remodeling.