| 作成者 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 本文言語 |
|
| 出版者 |
|
|
|
| 発行日 |
|
| 収録物名 |
|
| 巻 |
|
| 号 |
|
| 開始ページ |
|
| 終了ページ |
|
| 出版タイプ |
|
| アクセス権 |
|
| JaLC DOI |
|
| 関連DOI |
|
| 関連URI |
|
| 関連HDL |
|
| 概要 |
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of hybrid procedure for peripheral arterial disease (PAD), we compared the cases treated using the hybrid procedure with those treated using open revascularization ...(bypass alone) in our facilities. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 204 patients who underwent revascularization for PAD between 2007 and 2013. We divided the patients into two groups based on the type of procedure. Group 1 included patients who underwent the hybrid procedure, that is, doing endovascular therapy (EVT) either femoral or iliac resion and added the bypass procedure (infragenicular vein bypass) to the below knee artery, and group 2 included patients who underwent only bypass procedure (used autovein), that is, central anastomotic region was femoral artery region and peripheral anastomotic region was below knee artery. We evaluated various factors between the two groups, including the primary patency rate, secondary patency rate, amputation-free survival rate, and determined the efficacy of the hybrid procedure for PAD. Results: In the patientʼs characteristics, there was significant difference between the two groups in the cases with cerebrovascular disease, only (p=0.03). There were no significant differences in the primary or secondary patency rates, and the amputation-free survival rate. Conclusions: Primary patency rate, secondary patency rate, and amputation-free survival rate of the hybrid procedure were comparable to those of bypass (alone) procedure. The hybrid procedure is therefore an acceptable strategy for patients with PAD.続きを見る
|
Mendeley出力
