• Jessica Mayor, Bernardino C Branco, Jayer Chung, Miguel F Montero-Baker, Panagiotis Kougias, Joseph L Mills, and Ramyar Gilani.
• Division of Vascular Surgery & Endovascular Therapy, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
• Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Nov 1; 61: 65-71.e3.

BackgroundEndovascular management of complex aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) has been described as a viable alternative to open surgical reconstruction. To date, few studies have directly compared the 2 techniques. We therefore, evaluated short and mid- term outcomes of open and endovascular therapy in TASC II D AIOD patients.MethodsTASC II D patients undergoing treatment between January 2009 and December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, clinical data, and outcomes (complications [technical and systemic] and graft patency) were collected. The primary outcome of this study was primary graft patency. Patients were compared according to treatment group (open versus endovascular). Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyze follow up results.ResultsA total of 75 consecutive patients (open: 30; endovascular: 45) were included in this analysis. In the endovascular group, 25 (55.6%) patients were managed using a hybrid approach with 100% technical success. Critical limb ischemia was the indication for intervention in 16.0% of this cohort (open, 13.3% vs. endovascular, 17.8%, P = 0.397). Overall, there were no significant differences in gender (male: open, 50.0% vs. endovascular, 55.6%, P = 0.637) or age (54.5 ± 5.9 years vs. 57.0 ± 8.7 years, P = 0.171). No in hospital deaths occurred in this cohort. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in the open group (43.3% vs. 17.8%, OR 3.5, 95% CI [1.2-10.1], P = 0.016) with peri-operative systemic complications being more likely in the open cohort (40.0% vs. 6.7%, OR 9.3, 95% CI [2.3-37.3], P < 0.001) while technical complications did not differ between the 2 groups (6.7% vs. 11.1%, OR 0.6, 95% CI [0.1-3.1], P = 0.517). Follow up data was available for 68 patients (90.7%), for a mean of 21.3 ± 17.1 months (range: 1-72 months). Re-intervention rates were significantly higher in the endovascular group (3.3% vs. 20.0%, OR 7.2, 95% CI [1.1-14.3], P = 0.038). The overall primary patency at 2 years was significantly higher in the open group (96.7% vs. 80.0%, OR 7.2, 95% CI [1.2-60.5], P = 0.038). Cox regression analysis revealed separation of the primary outcome for open therapy relative to endovascular repair (log rank, P = 0.320).ConclusionsIn this comparison of open and endovascular therapy for complex AIOD, endovascular therapy was associated with high initial technical success and fewer in-hospital systemic complications but also high re-intervention rates when compared to open repair. Further prospective studies aimed at reduction of complications, optimization of patency, and patient selection for such procedures is warranted.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

41 keywords...

hide…