Zenunaj Gladiol, Acciarri Pierfilippo, Baldazzi Giulia, Cosacco Alessio Mario, Gasbarro Vincenzo, Traina Luca
Unit of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital of Ferrara, 44124 Ferrara, Italy.
Department of Translational Medicine for Romagna, School of Vascular Surgery, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2023 Sep 15;12(18):5978. doi: 10.3390/jcm12185978.
: Complex atherosclerotic femoro-popliteal lesions have traditionally been treated with bypass surgery. A prosthetic graft is used to save the vein graft for more distal revascularisations or when a vein graft is unavailable. The endovascular approach has gained popularity and is offered as a first-line strategy for complex lesions. This study aimed to evaluate whether endovascular procedures can be used as a first-line treatment strategy for complex native femoro-popliteal lesions over open surgery with prosthetic bypass in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). : This single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted between 2013 and 2021; it included patients with symptomatic PAD who required limb revascularisation at the femoro-popliteal segment and who had complex lesions. The primary endpoints analysed were technical success, primary patency, freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (cdTLR), freedom from major adverse limb and cardiovascular events (MALE and MACE, respectively), freedom from limb loss, and survival. The secondary endpoints were length of in-hospital stay, and duration and costs of the procedure. : We identified 185 limbs among 174 suitable candidates for comparison, wherein 105 were treated with an endovascular procedure and 80 with a femoro-popliteal prosthetic bypass. Most patients in both groups presented with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia, and >90% of them had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of >3. The endovascular group had more octogenarians ( = 0.02) and patients with coronary disease ( = 0.004). The median follow-up was 30 months. The technical failure rate for endovascular procedures was 4.7%, versus 0% in the open group ( = 0.047). Freedom from MACE was similar in both groups. The endovascular group showed superior primary patency ( < 0.0001), cdTLR ( < 0.0001), MALE ( < 0.0001), and freedom from limb loss ( = 0.0018) at 24 and 48 months. Further analysis performed for the open above-the-knee sub-group showed that the aforementioned endpoints were similar between the groups at 12 months and were better in the endovascular group at 24 and 48 months. Procedural time and in-hospital stay were longer in the open group than in the endovascular group ( < 0.0001 and < 0.001, respectively). The procedural cost in the endovascular group was 10-fold lower than that in the prosthetic bypass group. : Endovascular procedures are safe for treating complex femoro-popliteal lesions in patients at a high risk for surgery and show better outcomes at 24 months than prosthetic bypasses do. The latter may be considered as an alternative should endovascular treatment fail.
传统上,复杂的动脉粥样硬化股腘病变采用搭桥手术治疗。使用人工血管移植物以保留静脉移植物用于更远端的血管重建或在没有静脉移植物时使用。血管内治疗方法越来越受欢迎,并被作为复杂病变的一线策略。本研究旨在评估在患有外周动脉疾病(PAD)的患者中,血管内手术是否可作为复杂的原发性股腘病变优于人工血管搭桥开放手术的一线治疗策略。
这项单中心回顾性观察研究于2013年至2021年进行;纳入了有症状的PAD患者,这些患者需要在股腘段进行肢体血管重建且有复杂病变。分析的主要终点为技术成功率、原发性通畅率、免于临床驱动的靶病变血管重建(cdTLR)、免于主要不良肢体和心血管事件(分别为MALE和MACE)、免于肢体丢失以及生存率。次要终点为住院时间、手术持续时间和费用。
我们在174名合适的候选者中确定了185条肢体进行比较,其中105条接受了血管内手术治疗,80条接受了股腘人工血管搭桥手术。两组中的大多数患者表现为慢性肢体威胁性缺血,其中超过90%的患者美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况分类>3。血管内治疗组八旬老人更多(P = 0.02)且冠心病患者更多(P = 0.004)。中位随访时间为30个月。血管内手术的技术失败率为4.7%,而开放手术组为0%(P = 0.047)。两组免于MACE的情况相似。血管内治疗组在24个月和48个月时原发性通畅率(P < <0.0001)、cdTLR(P < <0.0001)、MALE(P < <0.0001)以及免于肢体丢失(P = 0.0018)方面表现更优。对开放的膝上亚组进行的进一步分析表明,上述终点在12个月时两组相似,而在24个月和48个月时血管内治疗组更好。开放手术组的手术时间和住院时间比血管内治疗组更长(分别为P < <0.0001和P < <0.001)。血管内治疗组的手术费用比人工血管搭桥组低10倍。
血管内手术治疗手术高危患者的复杂股腘病变是安全的,并且在24个月时比人工血管搭桥手术有更好的结果。如果血管内治疗失败,后者可被视为一种替代方案。