These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Open repair versus endovascular treatment of complex aortoiliac lesions in low risk patients.
    Author: Antonello M, Squizzato F, Bassini S, Porcellato L, Grego F, Piazza M.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2019 Oct; 70(4):1155-1165.e1. PubMed ID: 30850298.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare open surgical repair (OSR) versus endovascular repair (ER) using self-expanding covered stents for complex TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II (TASC) class C or D aortoiliac lesions in low-risk patients, with a specific subanalysis for younger patients. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review of TASC C/D lesions treated from January 2008 to December 2017 was conducted. Patients with associated aortic aneurysm or lesions involving the entire infrarenal aorta were excluded. Thirty-day outcomes, long-term patency, limb salvage, and freedom from related reinterventions were compared between OSR and ER. "Low surgical risk" was defined as a Society for Vascular Surgery comorbidity score of ≤0.7 and age <75 years. Patients were considered "young" if aged ≤60 years. The follow-up results were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Major clinical and anatomic characteristics were evaluated for their association with patency using Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Overall, 114 patients (OSR, n = 56; ER, n = 58) were treated, of whom, 70 patients (63%) had bilateral iliac disease involvement, for a total of 182 limbs revascularized (OSR, n = 96; ER, n = 86). Iliac lesions were classified by limb as TASC C (n = 71; 39%) or D (n = 111; 61%). Their mean age was 61.4 ± 8.4 years, and the mean Society for Vascular Surgery comorbidity score was 0.51 ± 0.39, without statistically significant differences between the OSR and ER groups (0.48 ± 0.29 vs 0.56 ± 0.47; P = .357). At 30 days, the ER group had had a shorter length of hospitalization (8.5 ± 6.2 vs 2.6 ± 0.8 days; P < .001) and intensive care unit stay (0.1 ± 0.6 vs 0.9 ± 0.5 day; P < .001) than the OSR group. The cumulative medical (OSR, 7%; ER, 5%; P = .714) and surgical (OSR, 10%; ER, 8%; P = .759) complication rates were similar. At 5 years, the primary patency rate was similar between the two groups (OSR, 87.3%; ER, 81.4%; P = .317). This result was confirmed in the subgroup of "young" patients (OSR, 84.7; ER, 75.0; P = .272). The limb salvage (OSR, 98.9%; ER, 98.4%; P = .920) and freedom from related reintervention (OSR, 74.4%; ER, 73.0%; P = .703) rates were similar. This trend was also confirmed in the "young" patients for both limb salvage (OSR, 98.5%; ER, 97.6%; P = .896) and freedom from related reintervention (OSR, 76.9%; ER, 63.6%; P = .223). Multivariate analysis indicated that the only independent negative predictor of patency was female gender in the ER group (hazard ratio, 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-26.60; P = .024). CONCLUSIONS: In the case of severe aortoiliac obstructive lesions in low-risk and young patients, ER using a covered stent can be considered as valid as OSR. In addition, it allows for shorter hospitalization and maintains a similar patency rate in the long term. However, for female patients, OSR remains the reference standard of treatment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]