D'Oria Mario, Berchiolli Raffaella, Gargiulo Mauro, Antonello Michele, Pratesi Giovanni, Michelagnoli Stefano, Silingardi Roberto, Isernia Giacomo, Veraldi Gian Franco, Tinelli Giovanni, Giudice Rocco, Ippoliti Arnaldo, Cappiello Pierluigi, Martelli Massimiliano, Lepidi Sandro, Troisi Nicola
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Vascular Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
J Vasc Surg. 2023 Nov;78(5):1270-1277. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.07.053. Epub 2023 Jul 31.
The aim of the study was to compare the early and medium-term outcomes of bypass vs endovascular treatment of occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (the OUT-STEPP multicentric registry).
Between January 2016 and December 2021, 317 patients in 14 centers underwent treatment for a symptomatic occlusion of femoro-popliteal stent/stents. One hundred sixty-one patients were included into the present study: 46 (28.6%) underwent open bypass surgery (Group OPEN), and 115 (71.4%) underwent endovascular revascularization (Group ENDO). Early (30 days) results were assessed and compared between the two groups. Estimated 5-year outcomes were evaluated and compared with the log rank test.
At 30 days, no differences were found in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury, reinterventions, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between the two groups. The need for blood transfusions was higher for patients in Group OPEN (17; 36.9% vs 13; 11.3%; P < .001). The mean length of intensive care unit stay and the mean hospital stay were higher for patients in Group OPEN ([0.3 ± 0.9 vs 0 days; P < .001] and [9.7 ± 5.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.4 days; P < .001], respectively). The overall median duration of follow-up was 33.1 months (interquartile range, 14-49.5 months). At 5 years, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of survival (68.7% Group OPEN vs 68.8% Group ENDO; P = .27; log-rank, 1.21), primary patency (56.3% Group OPEN vs 67.8% Group ENDO; P = .39; log-rank, 0.75), secondary patency (59.1% Group OPEN vs 77.8% Group ENDO; P = .24; log-rank, 1.40), absence of target lesion restenosis (56.8% Group OPEN vs 62.7% Group ENDO; P = .42; log-rank, 0.65), and limb salvage (77.2% Group OPEN vs 90.4% Group ENDO; P = .17; log-rank, 1.87).
Both bypass and endovascular treatment provided safe and effective restoration of patency for femoro-popliteal in-stent occlusion in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Open surgery was associated with longer stay in hospital and increased use of blood transfusions. At 5 years, no significant differences were found in the rates of overall patency or limb salvage between bypass and endovascular treatment.
本研究旨在比较慢性肢体威胁性缺血患者闭塞性股腘动脉支架的旁路手术与血管腔内治疗的早期和中期结果(OUT-STEPP多中心注册研究)。
2016年1月至2021年12月期间,14个中心的317例患者接受了有症状的股腘动脉支架闭塞治疗。161例患者纳入本研究:46例(28.6%)接受了开放旁路手术(开放组),115例(71.4%)接受了血管腔内血运重建(腔内组)。评估并比较两组的早期(30天)结果。采用对数秩检验评估并比较预计的5年结果。
在30天时,两组在主要不良心血管事件、急性肾损伤、再次干预、大截肢和全因死亡率方面未发现差异。开放组患者输血需求更高(17例;36.9%对13例;11.3%;P <.001)。开放组患者重症监护病房平均住院时间和平均住院时间更长(分别为[0.3±0.9天对0天;P <.001]和[9.7±5.8天对3.3±1.4天;P <.001])。总体随访中位持续时间为33.1个月(四分位间距,14 - 49.5个月)。在5年时,两组在生存率(开放组68.7%对腔内组68.8%;P =.27;对数秩,1.21)、原发性通畅率(开放组56.3%对腔内组67.8%;P =.39;对数秩,0.75)、继发性通畅率(开放组59.1%对腔内组77.8%;P =.24;对数秩,1.40)、无靶病变再狭窄率(开放组56.8%对腔内组62.7%;P =.42;对数秩,0.65)和肢体挽救率(开放组77.2%对腔内组90.4%;P =.17;对数秩,1.87)方面无差异。
对于慢性肢体威胁性缺血患者,旁路手术和血管腔内治疗均能安全有效地恢复股腘动脉支架内闭塞的通畅。开放手术与更长的住院时间和更多的输血使用相关。在5年时,旁路手术和血管腔内治疗在总体通畅率或肢体挽救率方面未发现显著差异。