Reconsidering the Impact of Endovascular Repair on Short-Term and Mid-Term Outcomes in Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Retrospective Analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of the study is to compare the short and medium-term outcomes in patients who underwent open repair (OR) or endovascular repair (ER) for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) also including stratifications based on severity and year of the first intervention. DesignObservational retrospective single-center cohort study. MethodsWe evaluated patients with PAD that primarily underwent ER, OR, minor and major amputations in a single center from 2005 to 2020. The patients were then subdivided according to the type of intervention (OR vs ER), and stratified according to the ICD-9 code reported in the operating documents and to the year intervention. Mortality, minor and major amputation rates occurring at 30 days, 2 and 5 years after the first intervention were evaluated as primary outcomes and compared between patient groups in both stratifications. Moreover, Kaplan-Maier (KM) curves were analyzed for these outcomes. Results1492 patients (67.0% males) with PAD were evaluated. Their clinical presentations were intermittent claudication in 51.4% of cases, rest pain in 16.8%, ulcers in 10.3%, and gangrene in 21.5%. 997 (66.8%) underwent OR and 495 (33.2%) ER as first intervention for PAD. No statistical differences were observed in terms of mortality in the two groups (OR vs ER, p=1.000, p=0.357, p=0.688 at 30 days, 2 and 5 years respectively). The rate of minor amputations was significantly higher (p<.012, p<.002, p<.007 at 30 days, 2 and 5 years respectively) for ER group in any of the observed follow-up periods. Also, we have observed that OR and ER do not have any significant short- and medium-term major amputation rate differences. ConclusionIn our experience, the impact of ER does not significantly change short- and mid-term major outcomes in patients with PAD.