Outcomes of axillofemoral bypass for intermittent claudication
Scott R Levin1, Alik Farber1, Elizabeth G King1
1Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass.
Insights
Axillofemoral bypass (AxFB) for intermittent claudication (IC) shows higher long-term risks of death, graft occlusion, and reintervention compared to aortofemoral bypass (AoFB). Careful consideration is advised before using AxFB for IC due to these complications.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Surgical Outcomes Research
Background:
- Intermittent claudication (IC) due to aortofemoral disease often necessitates surgical intervention.
- Suprainguinal bypass, including axillofemoral bypass (AxFB), is sometimes employed despite limited data on its efficacy for IC.
- Aortofemoral bypass (AoFB) is a common alternative for IC management.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the safety and durability of axillofemoral bypass (AxFB) in patients with intermittent claudication (IC).
- To compare the outcomes of AxFB with aortofemoral bypass (AoFB) for the treatment of IC.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative (2009-2019) database.
- Inclusion of patients who underwent suprainguinal bypass for IC.
- Comparison of perioperative and 1-year outcomes between AxFB and AoFB cohorts using univariable and multivariable analyses.
Main Results:
- AxFB patients were older, more male, never smokers, and had more comorbidities than AoFB patients.
- AxFB was associated with shorter hospital stays and fewer perioperative pulmonary and renal complications.
- However, AxFB had higher rates of perioperative major amputations and significantly increased 1-year risks of death, graft occlusion, amputation, and reintervention.
- Multivariable analysis confirmed AxFB independently associated with increased 1-year adverse events (HR 1.6, P=0.04).
Conclusions:
- Axillofemoral bypass (AxFB) is associated with higher long-term complication rates compared to aortofemoral bypass (AoFB) for intermittent claudication (IC).
- Despite potential perioperative advantages in some aspects, the increased long-term morbidity and mortality warrant careful consideration before selecting AxFB.
- The study suggests that AxFB should be used cautiously for treating IC due to its associated risks.
Objective:
Although endovascular therapy is often the first-line option for medically refractory intermittent claudication (IC) caused by aortofemoral disease, suprainguinal bypass is often performed. Although this will often be aortofemoral bypass (AoFB), axillofemoral bypass (AxFB) is still sometimes performed despite limited data evaluating its utility in the management of IC. Our goal was to assess the safety and durability of AxFB performed for IC.
Methods:
The Vascular Quality Initiative (2009-2019) was queried for suprainguinal bypass performed for IC. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to compare the perioperative and 1-year outcomes between AxFB and a comparison cohort of AoFB.
Results:
We identified 3261 suprainguinal bypasses performed for IC: 436 AxFBs and 2825 AoFBs. The mean age was 61.4 ± 9.1 years, 58.8% of the patients were men, and 59.7% currently smoked. Patients undergoing AxFB, compared with AoFB, were more often older, male, never smokers and ambulated with assistance (P < .001 for all). They had more often had hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and end-stage renal disease and had more often undergone previous outflow peripheral endovascular interventions and previous inflow or outflow bypass. The AxFBs, compared with the AoFBs, were more often unifemoral (P < .05). Patients who had undergone AxFB, compared with AoFB, had had a shorter postoperative length of stay (median, 4 vs 6 days) and fewer perioperative pulmonary (3% vs 7.9%) and renal (5.5% vs 9.9%) complications but had required more perioperative ipsilateral major amputations (0.9% vs 0.04%; P < .05 for all). No significant differences were found in the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction (2.8% vs 2.7%), stroke (0.7% vs 1.1%), or death (1.8% vs 1.7%). At 1 year, the Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the AxFB cohort, compared with the AoFB cohort, had had higher rates of death (7.3% vs 3.6%; P = .002), graft occlusion or death (14.3% vs 7.2%; P = .001), ipsilateral major amputation or death (12.5% vs 5.6%; P < .001), and reintervention, amputation, or death (19% vs 8.6%; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, AxFB was independently associated with an increased risk of 1-year reintervention, amputation, or death (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.4; P = .04).
Conclusions:
The results from the present retrospective analysis suggest that long-term complications were more frequent in patients who had undergone AxFB compared with AoFB, although patients treated with AxFB had had a greater risk with more comorbidities. Because AxFB was associated with significant perioperative morbidity, mortality, and long-term complications, serious consideration should be given before its use to treat IC.
More Related Videos
14:52Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication
Published on: December 11, 2013
13:48Reduction of Radiation Exposure during Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease Combining Fiber Optic RealShape Technology and Intravascular Ultrasound
Published on: April 21, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Arterial Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Evaluation
Peripheral Artery Disease IV: Nursing Management
Peripheral Artery Disease I: Introduction
