Assessment of 3-Year Patency after Endoluminal versus Surgical Bypass Therapy for Complex Femoropopliteal Artery Disease

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of endoluminal bypass with those of surgical bypass for complex femoropopliteal (FP) arterial lesions. Materials and MethodsIn this retrospective multicenter study, 530 patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (Rutherford classification 1–3, 66.0%; 4–6, 34.0%) who underwent either endoluminal bypass with Viabahn stent grafts (n = 276) or surgical bypass (n = 254) (with saphenous vein grafts, 74.4%; prosthetic grafts, 25.6%) for FP arterial lesions between 2010 and 2018 were analyzed. The propensity score-matched analysis was performed to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of endoluminal bypass with those of surgical bypass. The primary end point was primary patency (freedom from restenosis). The secondary end points were secondary patency, freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR), limb salvage, and overall survival. The interaction effect of baseline characteristics on the association of the revascularization strategy with the risk of restenosis was analyzed using the Poisson mixed-effect model. ResultsThe propensity score-matched analysis extracted 107 pairs. After propensity score matching, the primary patency rate at 1, 2, and 3 years was 84.5%, 75.1%, and 70.9%, respectively, for the endoluminal bypass group versus 78.6%, 73.3%, and 72.0%, respectively, for the surgical bypass group (P = .65). There was no significant difference in secondary patency, freedom from TLR, limb salvage, and overall survival (all P > .05). The subsequent interaction analysis revealed that the involvement of popliteal lesions, small distal reference vessel diameters, and long lesions favored surgical bypass over endoluminal bypass because of improved primary patency (all P for interaction < .05). ConclusionsThe 3-year clinical outcomes after endoluminal bypass or surgical bypass for FP arterial lesions were similar.