Objective: Propose a new risk classification system for blunt thoracic aortic injury and explore its treatment strategies. Methods: After the retrospective analysis of clinical data from 68 patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2016 to October 2020, there were 56 males and 12 females, among these patients, the median age was 45(21-69). According to the degree of aortic injury and the combined injury, the patients were scored for aortic injury, and the risk of the patients were graded into following three types: low-risk group (score ≤ 2 points) 12 cases, intermediate-risk group (3 points ≤ score ≤ 5 points) 41 cases, high-risk group (score ≥ 6 points) 15 cases. Analyzing the effects of treatments received by patients in different grades on the prognosis. Patients were followed up through hospitalization or outpatient clinics at 1, 3, 6, 12 months after surgery and every year thereafter. Results: Of the 68 patients, 21 received non-surgical treatment and 47 received surgical repair, including 6 open surgery and 41 thoracic aortic endovascular repair. There were 16 cases of emergency operation and 31 cases of delayed operation. Twelve low-risk patients were treated with non-surgical treatment, and only 1 patient died of lung infection, with a mortality rate of 8.3% (1/12). There were 8 deaths in 41 moderate-risk patients, with a mortality rate of 19.5% (8/41), and the aortic-related mortality rate was 9.8% (4/41), and the operative mortality rate was 10.8% (4/37). The total mortality of 15 high-risk patients was 40% (6/15), and the aortic-related mortality rate was 30.0% (5/15), and the mortality rate of surgical patients was 10% (1/10). During the follow-up period of 5 to 52 months, no deaths occurred outside the hospital. According to the risk grading, there were significant differences in the aortic-related mortality of each grade (χ²=7.840, P=0.020). During the follow-up of 5-52 months, 1 case had type Ⅰ endoleak, 1 case of cerebral infarction, and 1 case of acute renal failure. Conclusion: According to the patient's degree of aortic injury and combined injury, the risk classification helps to choose the appropriate treatment.
目的： 建立一种新的钝性胸主动脉损伤危险分级系统，探索其治疗策略。 方法： 回顾性分析2016年11月至2020年10月郑州大学第一附属医院68例钝性胸主动脉损伤患者的临床资料。其中男56例，女12例，中位年龄45（21~69）岁。根据患者主动脉损伤程度及合并伤情况对患者进行主动脉损伤评分，根据评分对患者危险程度进行分级：低危组（评分≤2分）12例、中危组（3分≤评分≤5分）41例、高危组（评分≥6分）15例。分析不同分级组患者接受的治疗方式对预后的影响。分别于术后1、3、6、12个月及以后每年通过住院或门诊对患者进行随访。 结果： 68例患者中接受非手术治疗21例，接受手术修复47例，其中开放手术6例，胸主动脉腔内修复术41例。急诊手术治疗16例，延迟手术治疗31例。12例低危患者均采用非手术治疗，仅1例患者死于肺部感染，死亡率为8.3%（1/12）。41例中危患者死亡率为19.5%（8/41），主动脉相关死亡率为9.8%（4/41），手术患者死亡率为10.8%（4/37）。15例高危患者死亡率为40%（6/15），主动脉相关死亡率为30.0%（5/15），手术患者死亡率为10%（1/10）。根据危险分级，各分级主动脉相关死亡率差异有统计学意义（χ²=7.840，P=0.020）。随访5~52个月，无院外死亡病例发生。随访中并发Ⅰ型内瘘1例，脑梗死1例，急性肾功能衰竭1例。 结论： 根据患者主动脉损伤程度和合并伤情况进行危险分级有助于选择合适的治疗方式。.