Comparison of long occlusive femoro-popliteal de novo vs. previous endovascularly treated lesions managed with in situ saphenous bypass

A systematic review and meta-analysis of primary bypass surgery compared with bypass surgery after endovascular treatment in peripheral artery disease patients

OBJECTIVE

Both bypass surgery and endovascular treatment are well-recognized interventions for the treatment of peripheral artery disease; however, the effect of failed endovascular treatment on subsequent surgeries remains controversial. A systematic review was conducted to compare the outcomes of primary bypass and bypass surgery after endovascular treatment.

METHODS

Three academic databases (Embase, PubMed, and Scopus) were searched from their inception to August 2022. Two independent investigators searched for studies that reported the outcomes of primary bypass surgery and bypass surgery after endovascular treatment in patients with peripheral artery disease. Abstracts and full-text studies were screened independently using duplicate data abstraction. Dichotomous outcome measures were reported using a random-effects model to generate a summary odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Seventeen retrospective observational studies were selected from 3911 articles and included 8064 patients, 6252 of whom underwent primary bypass surgery and 1812 underwent bypass surgery after endovascular treatment. The mean age was 69.0 years and 61.2% (n = 4938) were male. For perioperative outcomes, the 30-day results showed no difference in mortality (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.53-1.10), or amputation (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20). For short- to mid-term outcomes, primary patency did not differ at 6 months (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81-1.19), 1 year (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.97-1.30), or 2 years (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.85-1.61) follow-up. Amputation-free survival did not differ at 6 months (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30), 1 year (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32), 2 years (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.93-1.50), or 3 years (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.84-1.40) of follow-up. No significant difference was found in overall survival or second patency.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of retrospective, nonrandomized, observational studies suggests that prior endovascular treatment of lower extremity arterial disease does not result in worse perioperative, short-term, or mid-term clinical outcomes of subsequent infrainguinal bypass surgery compared with patients without prior endovascular treatment.

Bypass vs endovascular treatment for occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the early and medium-term outcomes of bypass vs endovascular treatment of occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (the OUT-STEPP multicentric registry).

METHODS

Between January 2016 and December 2021, 317 patients in 14 centers underwent treatment for a symptomatic occlusion of femoro-popliteal stent/stents. One hundred sixty-one patients were included into the present study: 46 (28.6%) underwent open bypass surgery (Group OPEN), and 115 (71.4%) underwent endovascular revascularization (Group ENDO). Early (30 days) results were assessed and compared between the two groups. Estimated 5-year outcomes were evaluated and compared with the log rank test.

RESULTS

At 30 days, no differences were found in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury, reinterventions, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between the two groups. The need for blood transfusions was higher for patients in Group OPEN (17; 36.9% vs 13; 11.3%; P < .001). The mean length of intensive care unit stay and the mean hospital stay were higher for patients in Group OPEN ([0.3 ± 0.9 vs 0 days; P < .001] and [9.7 ± 5.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.4 days; P < .001], respectively). The overall median duration of follow-up was 33.1 months (interquartile range, 14-49.5 months). At 5 years, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of survival (68.7% Group OPEN vs 68.8% Group ENDO; P = .27; log-rank, 1.21), primary patency (56.3% Group OPEN vs 67.8% Group ENDO; P = .39; log-rank, 0.75), secondary patency (59.1% Group OPEN vs 77.8% Group ENDO; P = .24; log-rank, 1.40), absence of target lesion restenosis (56.8% Group OPEN vs 62.7% Group ENDO; P = .42; log-rank, 0.65), and limb salvage (77.2% Group OPEN vs 90.4% Group ENDO; P = .17; log-rank, 1.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Both bypass and endovascular treatment provided safe and effective restoration of patency for femoro-popliteal in-stent occlusion in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Open surgery was associated with longer stay in hospital and increased use of blood transfusions. At 5 years, no significant differences were found in the rates of overall patency or limb salvage between bypass and endovascular treatment.