Objective
Patients presenting with occluded aortobifemoral bypass(ABF) grafts are managed with a variety of techniques. Redo ABF(rABF) procedures are infrequently performed due to concerns about procedural complexity and morbidity. The purpose of this analysis is to compare mid-term results of rABF to primary ABF(pABF) for aortoiliac occlusive disease(AIOD) to determine if there are significant differences in outcomes.
Methods
A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing ABF for occlusive disease between January 2002 and March 2012. A total of 19 patients underwent rABF and 194 received pABF during that time period. Data for an indication and comorbidity-matched case control cohort of 19 elective pABF patients were collected for comparison to the rABF 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(AFS) and freedom from major adverse limb events(MALEs).
Results
rABF patients more frequently underwent prior extra-anatomic or lower extremity bypass operations compared to pABF(P=.02), however no difference was found in the incidence of in prior failed endovascular iliac intervention(P =.4). By design, indications for the rABF and pABF 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 via retroperitoneal exposure in the rABF group(N=13 vs. N=1;P<.0001) and a significantly higher proportion of the rABF patients required concomitant infrainguinal bypass or intra-procedural adjuncts such profundaplasty(N=14 vs. N=5; P=.01). rABF patients experienced greater blood loss (1097±983mL vs. 580±457mL;P=.02), received more intraoperative fluids(3400±1422mL vs. 2279±993mL;P=.01), and had longer overall procedure times(408±102 vs. 270±48 minutes; P<.0001). Length of stay(days±SD) was similar (pABF, 11.2±10.4 vs. rABF, 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 2 groups(pABF, N=6(31.6%) vs. rABF, N=4(21.1%); observed difference 9.5%, 95% confidence interval:-17.6%, 36.7%;P=.7). Two-year freedom from MALE(±standard error mean) was 82±9% vs. 78±10% for pABF and rABF patients(log-rank, P=.6). Two-year AFS was 90±9% vs. 89±8% between pABF and rABF patients(P=.5). Two-year survival was 91±9% and 90±9% for pABF and rABF patients(P=.8).
Conclusions
Patients undergoing rABF have higher procedural complexity compared to pABF as evidenced by greater operative time, blood loss and need for adjunctive procedures. However, similar perioperative morbidity, mortality and mid-term survival occurred in comparison to pABF patients. These results support a role for rABF in selected patients.