JOURNAL ARTICLE

Comparison of Aortobifemoral Bypass to Aortoiliac Stenting with Bifurcation Reconstruction for TASC II D Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease

Andrew H Smith, Jocelyn M Beach, Siddhartha Dash, Jarrad Rowse, Frederico E Parodi, Lee Kirksey, Francis J Caputo, Sean P Lyden, Christopher J Smolock
Annals of Vascular Surgery 2022, 82: 120-130
34788703

BACKGROUND: Long-segment stenting of the infrarenal aorta and bilateral iliac arteries, with or without femoral endarterectomy for diffuse disease, has been adopted for treatment of severe aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of this reconstruction, termed aortoiliac stenting with bifurcation reconstruction (AISBR), to aortobifemoral bypass (ABF) in patients with comparable TASC II D lesions.

METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective review of patients treated with ABF or AISBR for comparable TASC II D lesions between 2010 and 2018. ABF patients were included only if they were deemed anatomic candidates also for AISBR after review of preoperative imaging. Patients treated for acute limb ischemia and bypass graft infection were excluded. Statistics included Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS: There were 24 ABF and 75 AISBR included in the study. The primary indication for treatment was claudication in 55 (55.6%) patients, rest pain in 28 (28.3%), and tissue loss in 16 (16.2%). Patients undergoing AISBR were more likely to be female. Femoral endarterectomies were performed in 37/75 (49.3%) AISBR and 14/24 (58.3%) ABF (P = 0.44). AISBR were performed percutaneously in 34/75 (45.1%). No AISBR required conversion to ABF. Intraoperative blood loss, procedure time and hospital length of stay (LOS) were significantly less for AISBR compared to ABF. Surgical site infections (SSI) were less common in patients undergoing AISBR (AISBR: 6/75 (8.0%) vs. ABF: 9/24 (37.5%), (P< 0.01). One AISBR and two 2 ABF developed late SSI >30 days postoperatively. The reductions in blood loss, LOS and SSI remained significant after excluding percutaneous AISBR from the analysis. Five-year primary patency was 50.8% (95% CI: 33.3, 68.4%) for AISBR and 88.1% (72.7, 100.0%) for ABF (P= 0.04). Five-year survival was 76.5% (95% CI: 63.6, 89.5) for AISBR and 100% (95% CI: 100.0, 100.0) for ABF (P = 0.07). Five-year primary assisted patency, secondary patency, freedom from reintervention and major adverse limb events did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS: AISBR is a viable option for management of TASC II D AIOD, with lower morbidity and acceptable durability when compared to traditional ABF.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
34788703
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"

We want to hear from doctors like you!

Take a second to answer a survey question.