Impact of femoropopliteal endovascular interventions on subsequent open bypass.

OBJECTIVE

An endovascular-first approach has been widely adopted as an alternative to surgical bypass in patients who need lower extremity revascularization for femoropopliteal disease. This study evaluated anatomic changes in the extent of bypass and outcomes of open bypass (OBP) surgery after failed endovascular treatment (EVT).

METHODS

We reviewed consecutive patients treated by endovascular femoropopliteal revascularization from 2002 to 2012. Patients requiring OBP after failed EVT were analyzed. Blinded investigators reviewed preoperative and postintervention angiographies. The location of the intended distal anastomosis before the endovascular intervention was compared with the open procedure after failed EVT, and results were analyzed for amputation and patency rates.

RESULTS

There were 566 patients (322 men [57%]) who underwent 836 endovascular femoropopliteal revascularizations in 665 limbs. Patients were a mean age of 72 ± 11 years. Mean follow-up was 20 months. Indication for revascularization was critical limb ischemia in 33% of patients before the index endovascular procedure. Interventions were performed for de novo lesions in 604 procedures (72%) or restenosis in 232 (28%). TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease A and B lesions were treated in 547 patients (65%). Balloon angioplasty was used in 822 interventions (98%), with primary or secondary stenting using self-expandable stents performed in 367 (44%). Thirty OBPs were required in 566 patients (5.3%) at an average of 15 months after the index EVT. OBP consisted of 6 above-knee, 14 below-knee, and 10 tibial bypasses. Vein and prosthetic conduits were used equally. Location of the distal anastomosis changed to a more distal target in 13 (5 below-knee and 8 tibial) of 30 patients (43%). Median follow-up was 36 months (range, 0.5-104 months), with a primary patency of 66% at 1 year and 46% at 3 years. Of the 30 bypasses, seven patients required reintervention with percutaneous angioplasty (n = 4) and patch angioplasty (n = 3). Five patients required redo bypass after failed endovascular salvage (lysis or angioplasty, or both), and redo bypass was not attempted in two. Eight patients (27%) progressed to major amputation, for an amputation-free survival of 79% at 1 year and 67% at 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

OBP after failed EVT was needed in a minority of patients. A change in the bypass target to a more distal site was identified in nearly half of patients. Although an endovascular-first approach to treating claudication and critical limb ischemia is safe and resulted in few progressing to OBP, poor outcomes of open interventions after EVT can be expected if EVT fails.