Comparison of outcomes between endovascular treatment and bypass surgery in Takayasu arteritis: comment on the article by Lee et al

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 431-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
FH Besir ◽  
H Bozkaya ◽  
C Cinar ◽  
E Oguz ◽  
M Parildar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Takayasu Arteritis ◽  
Bypass Surgery

Comparison of outcomes between endovascular treatment and bypass surgery in Takayasu arteritis

2013 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
GY Lee ◽  
P Jeon ◽  
Y-S Do ◽  
K Sung ◽  
D-I Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Takayasu Arteritis ◽  
Bypass Surgery

Endovascular treatment for multiple aortic narrowings in a patient with Takayasu arteritis

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-469
Author(s):  
Milan Djukic ◽  
Stefan A. Djordjevic ◽  
Maja Bijelic ◽  
Igor Stefanovic ◽  
Ingo Dähnert
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Takayasu Arteritis

ENDOVASCULAR TREATMENT OF MIDDLE CEREBRAL ARTERY ANEURYSMS WITH DETACHABLE COILS

Neurosurgery ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 876-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuichi Suzuki ◽  
Satoshi Tateshima ◽  
Reza Jahan ◽  
Gary R. Duckwiler ◽  
Yuichi Murayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Middle Cerebral Artery ◽  
Cerebral Artery ◽  
Coil Embolization ◽  
Bypass Surgery ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
Surgical Clipping ◽  
Endovascular Coil Embolization

Abstract OBJECTIVE Because of their anatomic configuration, middle cerebral artery (MCA) aneurysms are most often treated with surgical clipping. However, endovascular coil embolization of these aneurysms is an increasingly used alternative. We retrospectively reviewed the anatomic and clinical outcomes of patients with MCA aneurysms who underwent endovascular treatment at our institution. METHODS One hundred fifteen MCA aneurysms in 115 patients (mean age, 55.1 years) were treated by an endovascular technique from April 1990 to March 2007. Forty-eight patients (42%) presented with acute subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 67 patients (58%) had unruptured aneurysms. Fifty-three aneurysms (46%) were small with a small neck, 28 (24%) were small with a wide neck, 22 (19%) were large, and 12 (11%) were giant. RESULTS Angiographic results immediately after embolization showed complete occlusion in 53 aneurysms (46%), a neck remnant in 51 (44%), and incomplete occlusion in 3 (3%). Because of anatomic difficulties, we could not embolize 8 aneurysms (7%). Thirteen patients underwent combined treatment that included endovascular and extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery. Morbidity and mortality rates were 6.9% (8 patients) and 3% (3 patients), respectively. Procedure-related complications were encountered in 10 patients (9%). Seventy patients had long-term follow-up angiograms. Seven aneurysms (10%) were recanalized; all were large or giant. One partially embolized large aneurysm ruptured 13 months after embolization. CONCLUSION In this series, endovascular coil embolization of MCA aneurysms has morbidity and mortality rates comparable to those of conventional surgical clipping. Combined treatment of endovascular and bypass surgery can successfully treat large or giant complex fusiform MCA aneurysms.

scholarly journals Comparing the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment versus bypass surgery for infrarenal aortic occlusion: a single-center experience

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingjing Wang ◽  
Jiang Shao ◽  
Chenyang Qiu ◽  
Lijing Fang ◽  
Kang Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Bypass Surgery ◽  
Aortic Occlusion ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Infrarenal Aorta ◽  
Aortofemoral Bypass ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Infrarenal aortic occlusion (IAO) is a complete occlusion of infrarenal aorta, which is the most complicated and severe subclass of aortoiliac occlusive disease(AIOD). The first-line treatment for IAO is bypass surgery due to its favorable patency rate. As endovascular technique advances, several retrospective studies have reported their endovascular experience for IAO. However, whether endovascular treatment(EVT) is comparable to bypass surgery for IAO required further study. This research was to study the safety and efficacy of EVT for IAO compared to bypass surgery. Methods From 2003 to 2017, 44 consecutive patients with IAO was treated with EVT(n=16) or aortofemoral bypass surgery(n=28). The therapeutic strategy depended on patient’s will and state of health. Demographics, comorbidity, mortality, complication rate, and symptom-free survival proportion was compared by T-tests or chi-square test, to illustrate the safety and efficacy of EVT and bypass surgery. Results The demographics and pre-operative Rutherford classification equally distributed in the two groups(P>0.05). As for technical success, comorbidities, mortality, complication rate, and Rutherford classification after procedures, clinical success, no significant difference was observed(P>0.05). The median post-procedure hospital stay was 4 days in the EVT group and was significantly shorter than that of the bypass, which was 11 days(P<0.05). As for short-term and long-term results, the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year the cumulative symptom-free survival rates were 85.7%, 85.7% and 85.7% in the EVT group, 100%, 94.1% and 80.7% in the aortofemoral bypass group. There was no significant difference in symptom-free survival rate between the two groups according to log-rank test (P=0.92) Conclusions The safety and efficacy of EVT were comparable to that of anatomic bypass surgery for IAO. EVT could be a feasible option for IAO.

scholarly journals Comparing the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment versus bypass surgery for infrarenal aortic occlusion: a single-center experience

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingjing Wang ◽  
Jiang Shao ◽  
Chenyang Qiu ◽  
Lijing Fang ◽  
Kang Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Bypass Surgery ◽  
Aortic Occlusion ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Infrarenal Aorta ◽  
Aortofemoral Bypass ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Infrarenal aortic occlusion (IAO) is a complete occlusion of infrarenal aorta, which is the most complicated and severe subclass of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). The first-line treatment for IAO is bypass surgery due to its favorable patency rate. As endovascular technique advances, several retrospective studies have reported their endovascular experience for IAO. However, whether endovascular treatment(EVT) is comparable to bypass surgery for IAO required further study. This research was to study the safety and efficacy of EVT for IAO compared to bypass surgery. Methods: From 2003 to 2017, 44 consecutive patients with IAO was treated with EVT(n=16) or aortofemoral bypass surgery(n=28). The therapeutic strategy depended on patient’s will and state of health. Demographics, comorbidity, mortality, complication rate, and symptom-free survival proportion was compared by T-tests or chi-square test, to illustrate the safety and efficacy of EVT and bypass surgery. Results:The demographics and pre-operative Rutherford classification equally distributed in the two groups(P>0.05). As for technical success, comorbidities, mortality, complication rate, and Rutherford classification after procedures, clinical success, no significant difference was observed(P>0.05). The median post-procedure hospital stay was 4 days in the EVT group and was significantly shorter than that of the bypass, which was 11 days(P<0.05). As for short-term and long-term results, the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year the cumulative symptom-free survival rates were 85.7%, 85.7% and 85.7% in the EVT group, 100%, 94.1% and 80.7% in the aortofemoral bypass group.There was no significant difference insymptom-free survival ratebetween the two groups according to log-rank test (P=0.92) Conclusions: The safety and efficacy of EVT were comparable to that of anatomic bypass surgery for IAO . EVT could be a feasible option for IAO.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document