Short-Term Outcomes After Retrograde Versus Antegrade Crossing Approaches for Femoropopliteal Occlusive Disease.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare short- and mid-term outcomes of patients with femoropopliteal (FP) occlusive disease treated with a retrograde vs antegrade crossing strategy. BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared procedural details and outcomes after retrograde vs antegrade crossing of FP lesions. METHODS: Patients undergoing retrograde approaches to FP lesions were identified from the multicenter Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry between 2007 and 2015. These patients were matched 11 to patients treated with antegrade crossing strategies based on age, gender, comorbidities, indication for procedure, and lesion characteristics. Technical success, major adverse limb events (MALEs), and overall device cost were compared between retrograde and antegrade-only crossing. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients (58 antegrade and 58 retrograde) were included. The retrograde group had higher prevalence of coronary artery disease and presence of chronic total occlusions. The retrograde approach was associated with significantly longer procedural time (186 ± 70 minutes vs 124.4 ± 60 minutes; P<.001), but similar technical success (91.4% vs 96.6%; P=.24). There was no significant difference in perioperative morbidity. Patients treated with a retrograde approach had a lower total amputation rate (8.6% vs 22.4%; P=.04) and no difference in overall mortality (8.6% vs 5.2%; P=.47). Mean procedural costs were similar in the antegrade and retrograde groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with similar disease characteristics, a retrograde approach to FP occlusive disease was associated with longer procedural time, but improved limb salvage, without significant difference in procedural cost.