Outcomes after redo aortobifemoral bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients presenting with occluded aortobifemoral (ABF) bypass grafts are managed with a variety of techniques. Redo ABF (rABF) bypass procedures are infrequently performed because of concerns about procedural complexity and morbidity. The purpose of this analysis was to compare midterm results of rABF bypass with those of primary ABF (pABF) bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease to determine if there are significant differences in outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing ABF bypass for occlusive disease between January 2002 and March 2012. A total of 19 patients underwent rABF bypass and 194 received pABF bypass during that period. Data for an indication- and comorbidity-matched case-control cohort of 19 elective pABF bypass patients were collected for comparison to the rABF bypass group. Primary end points included rate of major complications as well as 30-day and all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were amputation-free survival and freedom from major adverse limb events.
RESULTS: The rABF bypass patients more frequently underwent prior extra-anatomic or lower extremity bypass operations compared with pABF bypass patients (P = .02); however, no difference was found in the incidence of prior failed endovascular iliac intervention (P = .4). By design, indications for the rABF and pABF bypass groups were the same (claudication, n = 6/6 [31.6%]; P = 1; critical limb ischemia, n = 13/13 [78.4%]; P = 1). Aortic access was more frequently by retroperitoneal exposure in the rABF bypass group (n = 13 vs n = 1; P < .0001), and a significantly higher proportion of the rABF bypass patients required concomitant infrainguinal bypass or intraprocedural adjuncts such as profundaplasty (n = 14 vs n = 5; P = .01). The rABF bypass patients experienced greater blood loss (1097 ± 983 mL vs 580 ± 457 mL; P = .02), received more intraoperative fluids (3400 ± 1422 mL vs 2279 ± 993 mL; P = .01), and had longer overall procedure times (408 ± 102 minutes vs 270 ± 48 minutes; P < .0001). Length of stay (days ± standard deviation) was similar (pABF bypass, 11.2 ± 10.4; rABF bypass, 9.1 ± 4.5; P = .7), and no 30-day or in-hospital deaths occurred in either group. Similar rates of major complications occurred in the two groups (pABF bypass, n = 6 [31.6%]; rABF bypass, n = 4 [21.1%]; observed difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval, -17.6% to 36.7%; P = .7). Two-year freedom from major adverse limb events (±standard error mean) was 82% ± 9% vs 78% ± 10% for pABF and rABF bypass patients (log-rank, P = .6). Two-year amputation-free survival was 90 ± 9% vs 89 ± 8% between pABF and rABF bypass patients (P = .5). Two-year survival was 91% ± 9% and 90% ± 9% for pABF and rABF bypass patients (P = .8).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing rABF bypass have higher procedural complexity compared with pABF bypass as evidenced by greater operative time, blood loss, and need for adjunctive procedures. However, similar perioperative morbidity, mortality, and midterm survival occurred in comparison to pABF bypass patients. These results support a role for rABF bypass in selected patients.