Outcomes of bypass and endovascular interventions for advanced femoropopliteal disease in patients with premature peripheral artery disease.

Autor:	Kim TI; Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., Zhang Y; Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn; Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn., Cardella JA; Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., Guzman RJ; Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., Ochoa Chaar CI; Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. Electronic address: cassius.chaar@yale.edu.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of vascular surgery [J Vasc Surg] 2021 Dec; Vol. 74 (6), pp. 1968-1977.e3. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jun 06.
DOI:	10.1016/j.jvs.2021.05.034
Abstrakt:	Objective: Patients with premature peripheral artery disease (PAD), defined as age ≤50 years at presentation, have had poor outcomes with open and endovascular lower extremity revascularization. It is unclear whether either strategy is associated with better outcomes because comparative studies have been limited to case series in this patient population. The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes of patients with premature PAD who had undergone bypass or endovascular revascularization for advanced femoropopliteal disease. Our hypothesis was that open bypass would provide superior long-term outcomes compared with endovascular intervention for patients with premature advanced femoropopliteal PAD. Methods: All the patients with premature PAD who had undergone isolated femoropopliteal lower extremity revascularization and included in the Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal bypass and peripheral vascular intervention files were reviewed from 2003 through 2019. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed between patients who had undergone femoropopliteal bypass and endovascular interventions for isolated femoropopliteal Trans-Atlantic Classification System C or D lesions. The 1-year outcomes, including reintervention, patency, major amputation, and mortality, were analyzed. Results: Of the 2538 included patients, 902 had undergone isolated femoropopliteal endovascular intervention and 1636 had undergone femoropopliteal bypass. The endovascular intervention group were more likely to have diabetes (68.9% vs 54.0%; P < .001), coronary artery disease (31.0% vs 23.0%; P < .001), renal failure requiring dialysis (14.2% vs 7.2%; P < .001), and claudication (45.1% vs 36.6%; P < .001) compared with the bypass group. After propensity score matching, 466 patients were in each group with no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Perioperative morbidity was higher with femoropopliteal bypass compared with endovascular intervention (12.0% vs 7.9%; P = .038); however, the rates of major amputation and mortality were not different. At 1 year, patients who had undergone femoropopliteal bypass were less likely to require reintervention (17.0% vs 25.2%; P = .012). However, no differences were found in major amputation (7.7% vs 7.9%; P = .928) or mortality (5.2% vs 5.2%; P = 1.00). Propensity score matching was also performed between femoropopliteal bypass with the great saphenous vein and isolated femoropopliteal endovascular interventions, and the outcomes were similar. Conclusions: For patients with premature PAD and advanced femoropopliteal disease, bypass surgery decreased the reintervention rate at 1 year but was associated with increased perioperative morbidity and hospital length of stay compared with endovascular therapy. No differences were found in major amputation or mortality between the two strategies. (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu