Comparative Analysis of Outcomes of Unibody Endoprosthesis and Aortobifemoral Bypass for Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease.

BACKGROUND: Aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) has traditionally been treated with aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). Unibody endograft (UBE) for AIOD, however, has been increasingly utilized in selected patients. We report outcomes of patients undergoing ABF or UBE for AIOD. METHODS: Patients (2016-2021) undergoing elective ABF or UBE with a unibody device for AIOD were identified at an academic institution. Chi-square and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used to evaluate outcomes by group. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one patients undergoing UBE or ABF were screened, with 82 included. Twenty-one patients underwent UBE (25.6%) and 61 (74.4%) underwent ABF. UBE patients were older (63.8 vs. 58.2 years; P = 0.01), with a higher prevalence of diabetes (52.4 vs. 19.7%; P = 0.004). Significant differences were seen between UBE and ABF including a shorter surgery length (214 vs. 360 min; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (300 vs. 620 mls; P = 0.001), larger minimum aortic diameter (14.6 vs. 12.6; P = 0.0006), larger common iliac artery (9.5 vs. 7.9; P = 0.005) and lower postoperative ankle-brachial index (0.8 vs. 0.9; P = 0.04). There were no differences in TASC C/D iliac lesions in the UBE than ABF group (66.6% vs. 63.9%; P < 0.82) or Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus classification femoropopliteal lesions. Unadjusted analysis revealed no significant differences between UBE and ABF for 30-day mortality (0 vs. 1.6%; P = 1), stroke (0 vs. 3.3%; P = 1), or major adverse cardiac events (4.8 vs. 4.9%; P = 1). There were no significant differences in mid-term surgical outcomes over a mean follow-up period of 23.7 months between UBE and ABF groups; specifically endovascular (0 vs. 8.2%; P = 0.3) or open/hybrid reintervention (9.5 vs. 14.8%; P = 0.7) with similar limb occlusion (4.8 vs. 27.8; P = 0.12). Kaplan-Meier estimated primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency at 36 months were similar with 94%, 100%, and 94% for UBE and 86%, 95%, and 86% for ABF, respectively. Estimated survival at 36 months was 95% for UBE and 97% for ABF (P = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent outcomes were seen between AIOD treated with UBE or ABF in similar patient populations. Mid-term outcomes such as reintervention and patency are similar for UBE and ABF. We still recommend ABF over UBE as a primary modality of treatment in surgically fit patients with greater complexity aortoiliac lesions and with smaller arterial diameters, especially women.

Treatment of Aortoiliac Occlusive Lesions by Aortic Robotic Surgery: Learning Curve and Midterm Outcome.

BACKGROUD: The learning curve and midterm results of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) revascularization by robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery may be known. METHODS: A prospective single-center study was conducted in the vascular surgery department of Georges Pompidou European Hospital (Paris, France). Patients with AIOD treated by RAL from February 2014 to February 2019 were included. Demographic characteristics, past medical history, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) lesions classifications, mortality, primary and secondary patency, as well as complication rates were collected. Safety was analyzed by the cumulative sum control chart method with a conversion rate of 10%, operative time by cumulative average-time model, and primary and secondary patency by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included, 18 (25.7%) with TASC C lesions and 52 (74.3%) with TASC D lesions. Before discharge, 14 (24.3%) patients had surgical complications. Among them, 10 (14.3%) required at least one reintervention. One (1.4%) patient died during the hospitalization. The learning curve in terms of safety (conversion rate) was 13 cases with an operating time of 220 minutes after 35 patients. During follow-up (median 37 months [21; 49]), 63 patients (91.3%) improved their symptoms, 53 (76.8%) became asymptomatic, and 3 graft limb occlusions occurred. The primary patency at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months was 94%, 92%, 92%, and 92%, respectively, while the secondary patency for the same intervals was 100%, 98.1%, 98.1%, and 98.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery in AIOD revascularization seems safe and effective; allowing to treat patients with few comorbidities and severe lesions, in a dedicated center experienced in RAL, with excellent patency. Prospective clinical trials should be performed to confirm safety.

Aortobifemoral bypass vs covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation.

BACKGROUND: Covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB) is increasingly used as a first line-treatment in patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent CERAB compared with the gold standard of aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for patients who underwent ABF or CERAB from 2009 to 2021. Propensity scores were generated using demographics, comorbidities, Rutherford class, and urgency. The two groups were matched using 5-to-1 nearest-neighbor match. Our primary outcomes were 1-year estimates of primary patency, major adverse limb events (MALEs), MALE-free survival, reintervention-free survival, and amputation-free survival. Standard statistical methods were used. RESULTS: A total of 3944 ABF and 281 CERAB cases were identified. Of all patients with AIOD, the proportion of CERAB increased from 0% to 17.9% between 2009 and 2021. Compared with ABF, patients who underwent CERAB were more likely to be older (64.7 vs 60.2; P < .001) and more often had diabetes (40.9% vs 24.1%; P < .001) and end-stage renal disease (1.1% vs 0.3%; P = .03). In the matched analysis (229 CERAB vs 929 ABF), ABF patients had improved MALE-free survival (93.2% [±0.9%] vs 83.2% [±3%]; P < .001) and lower rates of MALE (5.2% [±0.9%] vs 14.1% [±3%]; P < .001), with comparable primary patency rates (98.3% [±0.3%] vs 96.6% [±1%]; P = .6) and amputation-free survival (99.3% [±0.3%] vs 99.4% [±0.6%]; P = .9). Patients in the CERAB group had significantly lower reintervention-free survival (62.5% [±6%] vs 92.9% [±0.9%]; P < .001). Matched analysis also revealed shorter length of stay (1 vs 7 days; P < .001), as well as lower pulmonary (1.2% vs 6.6%; P = .01), renal (1.8% vs 10%; P < .001), and cardiac (1.8% vs 12.8%; P < .001) complications among CERAB patients. CONCLUSIONS: CERAB had lower perioperative morbidity compared with ABF with a similar primary patency 1-year estimates. However, patients who underwent CERAB experienced more major adverse limb events and reinterventions. Although CERAB is an effective treatment for patients with AIOD, further studies are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of CERAB compared with the established durability of ABF and further define the role of CEARB in the treatment of AIOD.

Morbidity and mortality of common femoral endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Common femoral endarterectomy (CFE) comprises the current standard-of-care for symptomatic common femoral artery occlusive disease. Although it provides effective inflow revascularization via a single incision, it remains an invasive procedure in an often-frail patient population. The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to assess the morbidity and mortality of CFE in a contemporary cohort. METHODS: Consecutive CFEs performed at a large, urban hospital were reviewed. Six-month mortality, local complications (hematoma, lymphatic leak, pseudoaneurysm, wound infection, and/or dehiscence), and systemic complications were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 129 isolated CFEs were performed over 7 years for claudication (36%), rest pain (16%), tissue loss (29%), or acute on chronic limb ischemia (21%). Mean age was 75 ± 9 years, and 68% of patients were male. Comorbidities were prevalent, including coronary artery disease (54%), diabetes (41%), chronic pulmonary disease (25%), and congestive heart failure (22%). The majority of CFEs were performed under general anesthesia (98%) with patch angioplasty using bovine pericardium (73% vs 27% Dacron). Twenty-two patients (17%) sustained local complications following the procedure; their occurrence was significantly associated with obesity (P = .002) but no technical or operative factors. Nineteen patients (15%) sustained serious systemic complications; their occurrence was significantly associated with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (P < .001), and a high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (P = .002). By 6 months, 17 patients (13%) had died. Being on dialysis, presenting with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and being in a high ASA class at the time of operation were all associated with 6-month mortality; a high ASA class at the time of operation was independently predictive of mortality (odds ratio, 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-9.24; P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: Although commonly performed, CFE is not a benign vascular procedure. Disease presentation, anesthetic risk, and expected longevity play an important role in clinical outcomes. Evolving endovascular approaches to the common femoral artery could serve to reduce morbidity and mortality in the future.

Safety and Efficacy of Stent-Graft in the Treatment of Aortoiliac Artery Occlusive Disease: A Multicenter Study of Short-Term and Medium-Term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the short-term and mid-term safety and efficacy of stent-graft compared with bare stents for treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). METHODS: One hundred eighty three patients diagnosed with AIOD who received stent implantation at 3 vascular centers in north China between January 2019 and December 2021 were enrolled. Patients were divided into those undergoing stent-graft (Group A; n = 67) or bare stent (Group B; n = 116) implantation for retrospective cohort analysis. Efficacy was assessed as surgical success rate and rate of freedom from clinically driven target lesion reintervention at each follow-up time point. Safety was assessed by the rate of perioperative complication, major limb amputation, and aortoiliac artery-related mortality. RESULTS: There were no preoperative baseline differences between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The surgical success was 91.04% for Group A, significantly higher than that for Group B (79.31%; P < 0.05). Incidence of perioperative complications was 2.98% for Group A, significantly lower than that for Group B (9.48%, P < 0.05), as was the rate of major limb amputation (A: 1.49% vs. B: 5.17%) and aortoiliac artery-related mortality (A: 1.49% vs. B: 4.31%), although these 2 indicators were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Follow-up rates were 91.8% for the total follow-up time of 3 years. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis gave significantly higher 1-year and 2-year freedom from clinically driven target lesion reintervention for Group A (98.51% and 95.52%) than for Group B (95.69% and 89.66%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Stent-graft is more effective and safer than bare stent in the treatment of AIOD.

Análisis de variables clínicas en pacientes con obstrucción arterial aguda en Hospital Gustavo Fricke / Clinical variables analysis in patients with acute arterial obstruction in Gustavo Fricke’s Hospital

INTRODUCCIÓN: La obstrucción arterial aguda (OAA) de extremidades es un cuadro grave, con una mortalidad cercana al 20 por ciento, por lo que requiere un diagnostico etiológico y manejo oportuno. El objetivo del presente estudio fue analizar sobrevida y variables clínicas según etiología. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: Estudio observacional analítico de casos de OAA no traumáticos atendidos entre años 2003 y 2007 en el Hospital Dr. Gustavo Fricke, con seguimiento vía registro civil y telefónico para obtener datos actualizados. RESULTADOS: Hubo 65 episodios de OAA en 60 pacientes durante el período. Se registraron 42 embolías (64,6 por ciento), 17 trombosis (26,1 por ciento), y 6 trombosis de by pass (9,2 por ciento). Se apreciaron diferencias significativas en edad (p=0,031) y género (p=0,033). El tabaquismo presentó un LR(+) de 2,61 y claudicación intermitente LR(+) 6,67para predecir etiología trombótica. El antecedente de accidente cerebrovascular presentó un LR(+) 4,65, el de arritmia LR(+) 12,05 y el de insuficiencia cardíaca LR(+) 8,76 para predecir etiología embólica. La sobrevida libre de amputación a 6 meses fue 90 por ciento. La sobrevida a 5 años fue 54,2 por ciento, siendo 37,8 por ciento en el grupo con embolía y 81,8 por ciento en el con trombosis (p<0,001). Pacientes con OAAde etiología embólica tenían un OR de 5,42 (IC95 por ciento 1,53-19,12) de fallecer comparados con pacientes con etiología trombótica. DISCUSIÓN: Las variables clínicas analizadas se comportarían como factores predictores de la etiologia de OAA, y por tanto del pronóstico y sobrevida de los pacientes. La mayor mortalidad del grupo de embolías se puede explicar por mayor edad, comorbilidades cardiovasculares, y embolías fatales a otros territorios.

INTRODUCTION: The acute arterial obstruction (AAO) of a limb is a severe condition, with almost 20 percent mortality, and therefore requires an appropriate diagnosis and treatment. The objective of this study was to analyze survival rates according to etiology and clinical variables. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analytic observational study of non-traumatic AAO cases treated between 2003 and 2007 at Hospital Dr. Gustavo Fricke, confirming survival through the Office of Civil Registration and telephonic follow up. RESULTS: There were 65 episodes of AAO in 60 patients during this period; 42 of these were embolism episodes (64.6 percent), 17 thrombosis episodes (26.1 percent) and 6 by-pass thrombosis (9.2 percent). There was significant difference in age (p=0.031) and gender (p=0.033). Smoking had a LR (+) of 2.61 for predicting thrombotic etiology whereas intermitent claudication had a LR (+) of 6.67. History of stroke, arrhythmia, and heart failure showed LR (+) for predicting embolic etiology of 4.65, 12.05, and 8.76 respectively. The amputation-free survival at 6 months was 90 percent. The 5 years survival was 54.2 percent 37.8 percent in the group with embolic etiology and 81.8 percent for thrombosis etiology (p <0.001). Patients with AAO with embolic etiology had an OR of 5.42 (IC95 percent 1,53-19,12) for decease compared with patients with thrombotic etiology. DISCUSSION: The clinical variables analyzed were proven to be good predictors for AAO etiology, hence for patients´ prognosis and survival. Higher mortality in the embolic etiology group could be explained by older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and fatal stroke in other territories.