| Literature DB >> 31417483 |
Yahui Zhao1, Junlin Lu1, Shaochen Yu1, Jiaxi Li1, Xiaofeng Deng1, Yan Zhang1,2,3,4, Dong Zhang1,2,3,4, Rong Wang1,2,3,4, Hao Wang1,2, Yuanli Zhao1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the postoperative risks and long-term effects between direct bypass surgery (DB) and indirect bypass (IB) surgery for pediatric patients with ischemic-type moyamoya disease (MMD). Method: Pediatric patients (under or equal to 18 years old) who were diagnosed as MMD and given surgical treatments at our center between 2009 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective database. Pediatric hemorrhagic-type MMD patients and those who did not undergo digital subtraction angiography (DSA) were excluded. Patients who underwent DB were matched with patients who underwent IB using 1:1 propensity score matching. Postoperative complications, recurrent ischemic stroke events and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at the last follow-up were compared between the matched pairs.Entities:
Keywords: direct bypass; indirect bypass; long-term outcome; moyamoya disease; pediatric MMD
Year: 2019 PMID: 31417483 PMCID: PMC6684789 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00795
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Flow diagram showing the selection of patients in the study.
Patient characteristics and group comparisons before and after propensity score matching.
| After propensity score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 34 | 104 | 34 | 34 | ||
| Age | 11.21 ± 4.10 | 9.56 ± 3.46 | 0.023 | 11.21 ± 4.10 | 11.26 ± 3.61 | 0.950 |
| Male/female ratio | 18:16 | 53:51 | 0.998 | 18:16 | 16:18 | 0.808 |
| mRS score on admission | ||||||
| 0 | 2 (5.9) | 3 (2.9) | 2 (5.9) | 2 (5.9) | ||
| 1 | 26 (76.5) | 71 (68.3) | 0.395 | 26 (76.5) | 28 (82.4) | 0.789 |
| 2 | 6 (17.6) | 25 (24.0) | 6 (17.6) | 4 (11.8) | ||
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 5 (4.8) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Cerebral infarction | 9 (26.5) | 28 (26.9) | 1.000 | 9 (26.5) | 9 (26.5) | 1.000 |
| Suzuki stage | ||||||
| I | 1 (2.9) | 3 (2.9) | 1 (2.9) | 1 (2.9) | ||
| II | 2 (5.9) | 4 (3.8) | 2 (5.9) | 3 (8.8) | ||
| III | 12 (35.3) | 41 (39.4) | 0.836 | 12 (35.3) | 11 (32.4) | 0.914 |
| IV | 14 (41.2) | 33 (31.7) | 14 (41.2) | 12 (35.3) | ||
| V | 5 (14.7) | 21 (20.2) | 5 (14.7) | 6 (17.6) | ||
| VI | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.9) | ||
| Unilateral MMD | 3 (8.8) | 6 (5.7%) | 0.821 | 3 (8.8) | 1 (2.9) | 0.606 |
| PCA involvement | 5 (14.7) | 37 (35.6) | 0.037 | 5 (14.7) | 7 (20.6) | 0.750 |
P < 0.05.
Surgical complications of matched couples.
| Surgical duration, min | 203.0 ± 50.9 | 138.2 ± 40.6 | <0.001 |
| Complications | 6 (17.6%) | 3 (8.8%) | 0.476a1 |
| Cerebral infarction | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | >0.999 |
| Transient neurological deficits | 3 (8.8%) | 2 (5.9%) | >0.999 |
| Seizures | 2 (5.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.493 |
| Cerebral hemorrhage | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | NA |
| mRS at discharge | |||
| 0 | 5 (14.7%) | 12 (35.3%) | 0.244a2 |
| 1 | 29 (85.3%) | 19 (55.9%) | |
| 2 | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | |
Statistical power (1-β): a1: 28.2%, a2: 95.8%.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier analysis showing a longer stroke-free survival in patients underwent DB than patients who underwent IB (P = 0.025). Mean stroke free interval (months): DB: 70.2 ± 22.2 months; IB: 47.9 ± 31.2 months; Median stroke free interval: DB: 71.5 months; IB: 54.7 months.
Long-term follow-up of matched couples.
| Follow up, months | 71.9 ± 22.2 | 60.2 ± 24.3 |
| mRS at last follow-up | ||
| 0 | 25 (73.5%) | 26 (76.5%) |
| 1 | 7 (20.6%) | 8 (23.5%) |
| 2 | 2 (5.9%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Follow-up duration between the DB and the IB groups were significantly different (P < 0.05).
Figure 3Comparison of patients' mRS score at time of admission and at last follow-up. a. Comparison of mRS in all patients at time of admission and at last follow-up (1.09 ± 0.45 vs. 0.28 ± 0.51, P < 0.001). b. Comparison of mRS in the DB group at time of admission and at last follow-up (1.12 ± 0.48 vs. 0.32 ± 0.59, P < 0.001). c. Comparison of mRS in the IB group at time of admission and at last follow-up (1.06 ± 0.42 vs. 0.24 ± 0.43, P < 0.001).