北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2017, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (1): 153-157. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2017.01.028

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

股浅动脉重建对下肢动脉硬化闭塞症治疗的随机病例对照研究

庄金满,李选△,李天润,赵军,栾景源,王昌明   

  1. (北京大学第三医院介入血管外科, 北京100191)
  • 出版日期:2017-02-18 发布日期:2017-02-18
  • 通讯作者: 李选 E-mail:xuanlivip@sina.com

Randomized controlled trial to superficial femoral artery recanalization for lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans

ZHUANG Jin-man, LI Xuan△, LI Tian-run, ZHAO Jun, LUAN Jing-yuan, WANG Chang-ming   

  1. (Department of Intervention Vascular Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100191, China)
  • Online:2017-02-18 Published:2017-02-18
  • Contact: LI Xuan E-mail:xuanlivip@sina.com

摘要:

目的: 评价忽略股浅动脉重建治疗慢性下肢动脉硬化闭塞症的安全性和有效性。方法: 应用前瞻性的随机病例对照研究方法对忽略股浅动脉重建治疗慢性下肢动脉硬化闭塞症的有效性和安全性进行评价,将北京大学第三医院2014年5月至2015年3月36例下肢动脉硬化闭塞症患者随机分为股浅动脉重建组(20 条患肢)和非重建组(16 条患肢), 重建组均采用腔内治疗重建股浅动脉血运,非重建组均不重建股浅动脉,仅处理同时存在的髂动脉及股深动脉病变,比较两组患者临床疗效、并发症及治疗费用。结果: 两组患者的年龄、性别构成、治疗前踝肱指数、TASC(transatlantic intersociery consensus)分级及Rutherford分级均具有可比性(P>0.05),术后1周内重建组显效率和总有效率均优于非重建组[75.0% vs.12.5%(P<0.001); 90.0% vs. 37.5%(P=0.001)],两组均无围手术期并发症及死亡病例。3个月随访时重建组显效率优于非重建组[65.0% vs. 25.0%(P=0.017)],两组总有效率差异无统计学意义[85.0% vs.68.8%(P=0.422)];6个月和12个月随访时两组显效率及总有效率差异均无统计学意义[显效率60.0% vs.37.5% (P=0.180),80.0% vs.87.5%(P=0.672);总有效率60.0% vs.43.8%(P=0.332),85.0% vs.87.5%(P=1.000)],重建组治疗费用高于非重建组[(53 367.4±24 518.3)元 vs.(30 397.5±15 354.4)元(P=0.011)]。重建组随访期间发现股浅动脉再狭窄/闭塞者8例,其中3例再次介入治疗,再次腔内治疗率为15.0%。结论: 忽略股浅动脉重建治疗慢性下肢动脉硬化闭塞症安全、有效、经济,可以作为部分外周动脉疾病患者的首选治疗方法。

关键词: 导管插入术, 外周, 外周动脉疾病, 动脉硬化, 闭塞性, 腔内治疗, 股浅动脉, 病例对照研究

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of neglecting superficial femoral artery (SFA) recanalization for chronic lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans (ASO). Methods: Thirty-six cases treated for severe stenosis or occlusion of superficial femoral artery resulted from ASO were randomly divided into 2 groups. Twenty of them were treated by endovascular reconstruction of superficial femoral artery and the other 16 cases were not treated with their superficial femoral artery, but were only treated with the accompanied iliac and/or profunda femoral artery lesion. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups on mean age, gender, ABI before treatment, accompanied diseases, Rutherford classification and trans-atlantic inter-society consensus (TASC) classification (P>0.05).One week after operation, the reconstruction group had better marked effect and total effective rate [75.0% vs.12.5%(P<0.001); 90.0% vs. 37.5%(P=0.001)] and lower no effective rate [10.0% vs. 62.5%(P=0.001)], There was no significant difference between the two groups on effective rate [15.0% vs. 25.0%(P=0.675)]. The deteriorate cases in both groups were zero, and there was no morbidity of complications and death in both groups during the perioperative period. In the 3-month follow up, the reconstruction group had a better marked effect rate [65.0% vs.25.0%(P=0.017)];There was no significant difference between the two groups on the effective rate, no effective rate and total effective rate [20.0% vs.43.8%(P=0.124); 15.0% vs.31.3%(P=0.422); 85.0% vs.68.8%(P=0.422)]. The deteriorate cases and morbidity of complications and death in both groups during the perioperative period were still zero. In the 6-and 12-month follow ups, there were no significant differences between the two groups on marked effect and total effective rate [60.0% vs.37.5%(P=0.180), 80.0% vs.87.5%(P=0.672); 60.0% vs.43.8%(P=0.332), 85.0% vs.87.5%(P=1.000)]. The deteriorate case was zero in both groups, and there was no morbidity of complications and death in both groups. The limb salvage rate in both groups was 100% during the whole follow up period. The reconstruction group had a higher cost[(53 367.4±24 518.3) yuan vs.(30 397.5±15 354.4) yuan(P=0.011)]. There were 8 cases of SFA restenosis/ reocclusion during the follow up,three of which accepted another endovascular treatment, and the reoperation rate was 15.0%. while in the nonreconstruction group, there was no case that needed another endovascular therapy, and the reoperation rate was zero. Conclusion: Only dealing with accompanied iliac and profunda artery lesion and neglecting superficial femoral artery reconstruction is a safe, effective and inexpensive therapy for chronic lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans, and should be the preferred alternative for some patients.

Key words: Catheterization peripheral, Peripheral arterial disease, Arteriosclerosis obliterins, Endovascular therapy, Superficial femoral artery

中图分类号: 

  • R754.3
[1] 张璐,胡小红,陈澄,蔡月明,王庆文,赵金霞. 类风湿关节炎初治患者颈椎失稳情况及临床特征[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(6): 1049-1054.
[2] 庄金满,李天润,李选,栾景源,王昌明,冯琦琛,韩金涛. Rotarex 旋切导管在下肢动脉硬化闭塞症支架内再狭窄中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(4): 740-743.
[3] 杨洋,陈宇珂,车新艳,吴士良. 经阴道修补膀胱阴道瘘失败的预后因素:巢式病例对照研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(4): 675-679.
[4] 李峥,王霄,洪天配,王浩杰,高展翼,万蒙. 晚期糖基化终末产物抑制大鼠外周血单个核细胞及成骨细胞增殖的作用机制[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(2): 355-363.
[5] 张璐,胡小红,王庆文,蔡月明,赵金霞,刘湘源. 类风湿关节炎合并颈椎失稳的人群分布及临床特征[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(6): 1034-1039.
[6] 钱亚龙,徐帅,刘海鹰. 椎间盘镜辅助脊髓刺激电极植入治愈下肢缺血1例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(2): 378-381.
[7] 贾子昌,卞焕菊,李选,栾景源,王昌明,刘启佳,韩金涛. Neuroform EZ支架在治疗复杂症状性颅内动脉重度狭窄中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(5): 835-839.
[8] 陶春燕,李红霞,李雪迎,唐朝枢,金红芳,杜军保. 体位性心动过速综合征儿童及青少年在直立试验中血流动力学变化[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(3): 414-421.
[9] 王嘉禹,赵美萍. 荧光分析法测定人体血液样品中脱嘌呤/脱嘧啶核酸内切酶1(APE1)的活性[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(3): 487-492.
[10] 谢云波,张纪元,杜美玲,孟繁平,福军亮,刘利敏,王松山,曲芮,廉方,乔菲,陈杨柳,高莹莹,徐若男,施明,王福生. 原发性肝癌患者同种异体NK细胞治疗后疗效评价及外周淋巴细胞亚群变化特点[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(3): 591-595.
[11] 李伟浩,张学民,贺致宾,张小明,蒋京军,张韬,李伟,李清乐. 脊髓电刺激术治疗不可手术的慢性严重肢体缺血1例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(2): 362-364.
[12] 韩晓峰,郭曦,李铁铮,刘光锐,黄连军. 分支血管灌注不良分型在主动脉夹层腔内修复术中的应用及分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(6): 996-1002.
[13] 任秀莲,刘平,廉颖,黄锦,郑晓英,朱亚菊,乔杰. 不同的胚胎移植管对体外受精-胚胎移植技术结局的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(5): 905-909.
[14] 庄金满, 李选, 李天润, 傅军, 栾景源, 王昌明. 股腘动脉病变球囊扩张与支架植入的疗效对比研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(1): 160-165.
[15] 庄金满,李选,李天润,董国祥,赵军,栾景源. 股腘动脉TASCⅡ C/D型病变腔内重建与旁路手术的疗效对比[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2015, 47(6): 957-961.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 张三. 中文标题测试[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2010, 42(1): 1 -10 .
[2] 赵磊, 王天龙 . 右心室舒张末期容量监测用于肝移植术中容量管理的临床研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2009, 41(2): 188 -191 .
[3] 万有, , 韩济生, John E. Pintar. 孤啡肽基因敲除小鼠电针镇痛作用增强[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2009, 41(3): 376 -379 .
[4] 张燕, 韩志慧, 钟延丰, 王盛兰, 李玲玲, 郑丹枫. 骨骼肌活组织检查病理诊断技术的改进及应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2009, 41(4): 459 -462 .
[5] 赵奇, 薛世华, 刘志勇, 吴凌云. 同向施压测定自酸蚀与全酸蚀粘接系统粘接强度[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2010, 42(1): 82 -84 .
[6] 林红, 王玉凤, 吴野平. 学校生活技能教育对小学三年级学生行为问题影响的对照研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2007, 39(3): 319 -322 .
[7] 丰雷, 程嘉, 王玉凤. 注意缺陷多动障碍儿童的运动协调功能[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2007, 39(3): 333 -336 .
[8] 李岳玲, 钱秋瑾, 王玉凤. 儿童注意缺陷多动障碍成人期预后及其预测因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2007, 39(3): 337 -340 .
[9] . 书讯[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2007, 39(3): 225 -328 .
[10] 牟向东, 王广发, 刁小莉, 阙呈立. 肺黏膜相关淋巴组织型边缘区B细胞淋巴瘤一例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2007, 39(4): 346 -350 .