Critical limb ischaemia: An evaluation of current revascularization outcome of endovascular intervention versus open‐bypass surgery

Abstract

Aim:The aim of the present study was to evaluate current results of endovascular and open-bypass treatment of critical limb ischaemia subsequent to advancement in endovascular instruments and the development of endovascular technique in the past decade. Patients and Methods: A total of 160 patients with 167 limbs treated at a single centre between 2008 and 2012 were followed up for at least 2 years and reviewed retrospectively. Patients were stratified into an endovascular group and an open-bypass group based on first intervention received. The two groups demonstrated comparable demographics, clinical profile classified by Rutherford Classifications and lesion characteristics evaluated according to TransAtlantic Intersociety Consensus staging standards. One-year primary patency, 2-year primary patency, secondary patency, overall survival rate and amputation-free-survival rate were compared between the endovascular group and open-bypass group. Results: The endovascular group showed superior results to the bypass group in terms of 1-year amputation-free-survival (endovascular: 78.2 per cent, open bypass: 61.3 per cent, P = 0.023) and 2-yearamputation-free-survival (endovascular: 73.1 per cent, open bypass: 56 per cent, P = 0.027). No significant difference was found between the two groups in 1-year primary patency (endovascular: 80.3 per cent, open bypass: 67.8 per cent, P = 0.103), 2-year primary patency (endovascular: 80.3 per cent, open bypass: 64.8 per cent, P = 0.056), 1-year secondary patency (endovascular: 77.8 per cent, open bypass: 66.7 per cent, P = 0.577) and two-year secondary patency (endovascular: 77.8 per cent, open bypass: 58.3 per cent, P = 0.350). Comparable results were noted in the 1-year survival rate (endovascular: 91 per cent, open bypass: 81.3 per cent, P = 0.082) and 2-year survival rate (endovascular: 84.6 per cent, open bypass: 72 per cent, P = 0.058). Lower median blood loss (endovascular: 15 mL, open bypass: 100 mL) and shorter mean operative time (endovascular: 27.2 min, open bypass: 143.1 min) were demonstrated in the endovascular group.Conclusion: Endovascular intervention has demonstrated superior results to bypass surgery in critical limb ischaemia in terms of 1-year and 2-year amputation-free-survival, with potential benefits of lower intraoperative blood loss and a shorter operative time. Primary patency, secondary patency and overall survival in 2 years are currently comparable between the two intervention modalities.