Alexander A Gostev1, Olesya S Osipova2, Shoraan B Saaya2, Savr V Bugurov2, Alexey V Cheban2, Artem A Rabtsun2, Pavel V Ignatenko2, Andrey A Karpenko2. 1. Department of Vascular Pathology and Hybrid Technologies, Meshalkin National Medical Research Center of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, Novosibirsk Area, Rechkunovskaya 15'th st., Novosibirsk, Russia, 630055. dr.gostev@gmail.com0. 2. Department of Vascular Pathology and Hybrid Technologies, Meshalkin National Medical Research Center of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, Novosibirsk Area, Rechkunovskaya 15'th st., Novosibirsk, Russia, 630055.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare femoro-popliteal bypass and interwoven nitinol stenting for long occlusions of the femoro-popliteal segment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single center retrospective propensity matching analysis of the symptomatic patients with long occlusion of the femoro-popliteal segment (> 20 cm), who underwent stenting with interwoven nitinol stent or femoro-popliteal bypass from 2012 to 2020. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: primary patency, primary-assisted patency, secondary patency. Secondary endpoints: major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse limb events, primary sustained clinical improvement, survival. RESULTS: A total of 437 patients were enrolled: 294 in the bypass group and 143 in the endovascular therapy (EVT) group. After propensity score matching, 264 and 113 patients remained in the groups, respectively. A median occlusion length was 250 mm. One-year and two-year primary and secondary patency rates were comparable in both groups (two-year primary patency: 68.5% for bypass vs. 68.9% for EVT, p = 1.00). In the "above the knee" subgroup analysis, two-year secondary patency was higher in the EVT group than in the bypass group (90.9% vs. 77.5%, p = 0.048). In "below-the-knee" subgroup analysis, primary and primary assisted patency were statistically significantly higher in the EVT group than in artificial bypass subgroup (66.7% vs. 42.4%, p = .046 and 76.7% vs. 45.5%, p = .011, respectively). However, compared to autovenous bypass, the EVT group showed lower primary patency rates, although the differences are not significant. CONCLUSION: A nonselective endovascular strategy can allow for regular successful treatment of femoro-popliteal lesions longer than 25 cm.
PURPOSE: To compare femoro-popliteal bypass and interwoven nitinol stenting for long occlusions of the femoro-popliteal segment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single center retrospective propensity matching analysis of the symptomatic patients with long occlusion of the femoro-popliteal segment (> 20 cm), who underwent stenting with interwoven nitinol stent or femoro-popliteal bypass from 2012 to 2020. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: primary patency, primary-assisted patency, secondary patency. Secondary endpoints: major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse limb events, primary sustained clinical improvement, survival. RESULTS: A total of 437 patients were enrolled: 294 in the bypass group and 143 in the endovascular therapy (EVT) group. After propensity score matching, 264 and 113 patients remained in the groups, respectively. A median occlusion length was 250 mm. One-year and two-year primary and secondary patency rates were comparable in both groups (two-year primary patency: 68.5% for bypass vs. 68.9% for EVT, p = 1.00). In the "above the knee" subgroup analysis, two-year secondary patency was higher in the EVT group than in the bypass group (90.9% vs. 77.5%, p = 0.048). In "below-the-knee" subgroup analysis, primary and primary assisted patency were statistically significantly higher in the EVT group than in artificial bypass subgroup (66.7% vs. 42.4%, p = .046 and 76.7% vs. 45.5%, p = .011, respectively). However, compared to autovenous bypass, the EVT group showed lower primary patency rates, although the differences are not significant. CONCLUSION: A nonselective endovascular strategy can allow for regular successful treatment of femoro-popliteal lesions longer than 25 cm.
Authors: L Norgren; W R Hiatt; J A Dormandy; M R Nehler; K A Harris; F G R Fowkes; Kevin Bell; Joseph Caporusso; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Kimihiro Komori; Johannes Lammer; Christos Liapis; Salvatore Novo; Mahmood Razavi; Johns Robbs; Nicholaas Schaper; Hiroshi Shigematsu; Marc Sapoval; Christopher White; John White; Denis Clement; Mark Creager; Michael Jaff; Emile Mohler; Robert B Rutherford; Peter Sheehan; Henrik Sillesen; Kenneth Rosenfield Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: John R Laird; Barry T Katzen; Dierk Scheinert; Johannes Lammer; Jeffrey Carpenter; Maurice Buchbinder; Rajesh Dave; Gary Ansel; Alexandra Lansky; Ecaterina Cristea; Tyrone J Collins; Jeffrey Goldstein; Annie Y Cao; Michael R Jaff Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Victor Aboyans; Jean-Baptiste Ricco; Marie-Louise E L Bartelink; Martin Björck; Marianne Brodmann; Tina Cohnert; Jean-Philippe Collet; Martin Czerny; Marco De Carlo; Sebastian Debus; Christine Espinola-Klein; Thomas Kahan; Serge Kownator; Lucia Mazzolai; A Ross Naylor; Marco Roffi; Joachim Röther; Muriel Sprynger; Michal Tendera; Gunnar Tepe; Maarit Venermo; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Ileana Desormais Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Stephan H Duda; Marc Bosiers; Johannes Lammer; Dierk Scheinert; Thomas Zeller; Vincent Oliva; Alexander Tielbeek; John Anderson; Benjamin Wiesinger; Gunnar Tepe; Alexandra Lansky; Michael R Jaff; Catharina Mudde; Hans Tielemans; Jean-Paul Beregi Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Michel M P J Reijnen; Laurens A van Walraven; Wilbert M Fritschy; Mare M A Lensvelt; Clark J Zeebregts; M Suzanna Lemson; Otmar R M Wikkeling; Luuk Smeets; Suzanne Holewijn Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Florian K Enzmann; Patrick Nierlich; Manuela Aspalter; Wolfgang Hitzl; Werner Dabernig; Thomas Hölzenbein; Ara Ugurluoglu; Rainald Seitelberger; Klaus Linni Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 11.195