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: The Comparison between Axillofemoral Bypass and Endovascular Treatment for Patients with Challenging Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease as Alternative Treatment to Aortofemoral Bypass.
    Author: Nishizawa M, Igari K, Katsui S, Kudo T, Uetake H.
    Journal: Ann Vasc Dis; 2020 Jun 25; 13(2):144-150. PubMed ID: 32595790.
    Abstract:
    Objective: Although aortofemoral bypass (AoFB) is the standard treatment for challenging aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD), less-invasive treatments, such as axillofemoral bypass (AxFB) or endovascular treatment (EVT) have been conducted for patients with severe comorbidities. In this study, we compared the clinical outcomes between AxFB and EVT for AIOD. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 9 patients with AxFB and 10 with EVT for challenging AIOD. The patients' information and operative results were evaluated. The rates of patency and limb salvage were analyzed according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: In the EVT group, 5 of 10 (50%) patients had aortic stenting alone, 3 (30%) received aorto-uniiliac stenting, and 2 (20%) received aorto-biiliac stenting. In the AxFB group, 2 cases (22.2%) showed acute graft thrombosis; however, in the EVT group, no acute thrombotic complications were seen. The primary patency rates in the AxFB and EVT groups at 5 years were 53.6% and 81.2%, respectively (log rank P=0.225), and the assisted primary patency rates at 5 years were 53.6% and 100%, respectively (log rank P=0.012). Conclusion: EVT exhibited a more durable, better long-term patency rate than AxFB. EVT may, therefore, be a viable treatment alternative to AoFB for challenging AIOD.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]