Comparison of Direct and Less Invasive Techniques for the Treatment of Severe Aorto-Iliac Occlusive Disease

Background: Severe aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD) is traditionally treated with aortobifemoral bypass (ABF) or aorto-unifemoral bypass (AUF). However, cross-femoral bypass (CFB) and hybrid femoral endarterectomy and patch angioplasty with iliac stenting (EPS) have gained popularity as less invasive options. We sought to compare 1-year survival, primary patency, and major amputation rates between open surgical (ABF and AUF) and 2 less invasive reconstruction techniques (CFB and EPS) using a large, multicenter cohort. Study Design: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent either ABF/AUF or CFB/EPS for AIOD between 2006 and 2013 in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative registry. Baseline patient and periprocedural variables were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to predict the likelihood of more invasive repair. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models were performed for 1-year survival, primary patency, and major amputation. Results: 1872 patients underwent procedures for AIOD, including 1,133 ABF/AUF and 739 CFB/EPS, during the study period. Indication was critical limb ischemia in 47.3% (n = 886). Median follow-up time was 305 days (range, 10-406). After PSM, the matched cohort included 1,094 ABF/AUF and 711 CFB/EPS patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that patient factors and procedure indication were significant predictors of 1-year mortality and major amputation, but not procedure type. ABF/AUF was associated with improved primary patency over CFB/EPS at 1 year (94.1% +/- 1.1% vs. 92.3% +/- 1.5%, hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.94; P = 0.02). Conclusions: In a propensity-matched cohort from a multicenter vascular surgery registry, a direct approach to AIOD (ABF/AUF) demonstrated better 1-year primary patency than commonly used less invasive strategies. However, treatment approach was not a predictor of 1-year survival or limb salvage, suggesting that patient factors and procedure indication have a greater impact on outcome.