Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular Therapy and Hybrid Surgery in the Treatment of Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II D Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease.

Abstract

To study and compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy with those of hybrid surgery in the treatment of Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II (TASC II) D aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). Patients with TASC II D-type AIOD who underwent their first surgical treatment at our hospital between March 2018 and March 2021 were enrolled and followed up to evaluate the improvement in symptoms, complications, and primary patency. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the differences in primary patency between the treatment groups. In total, 132 of 139 enrolled patients (94.96%) achieved technical success following treatment. The perioperative mortality rate was 1.44% (2/139), and postoperative complications occurred in two patients. Among the patients who successfully underwent surgery, 120 underwent endovascular treatment (110 patients with stenting and 10 patients with thrombolysis before stenting), 10 underwent hybrid surgery, and 2 underwent open surgery. The follow-up data were compared between the endovascular and hybrid groups. At the end of the follow-up period, the patency rates in the hybrid and endovascular groups were 100% and 89.17% (107/120), respectively. The endovascular group achieved primary patency rates of 94.12%, 92.44%, and 89.08% at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively, respectively, whereas the primary patency rate remained at 100% in the hybrid group, with no significant variation between the endovascular and hybrid groups (P = 0.289). The endovascular group was further divided into a stent subgroup (110 patients) and a thrombolysis/stent subgroup (10 patients), and no prominent variation was noted in the primary patency between the two subgroups (P = 0.276). Although open surgery is the gold standard treatment for TASC II D-type AIOD, endovascular and hybrid treatments are feasible and effective. Both methods showed good technical success and early to midterm primary patency rates.