Treatment of bypass failure in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia – open surgery vs. percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy

Abstract

Summary: Background: Lower limb bypass occlusion in patients with chronic limb threating ischemia remains a challenge. We can choose between different treatment options: open surgery, local thrombolysis, thrombectomy/atherectomy devices. In this pilot study, we compare clinical outcomes and treatment costs between open surgery (OS) and percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (pMTH). Patients and methods: This pilot study represents a retrospective analysis of hospital data of 48 occluded bypasses admitted from 2013 to 2018. Only patients presenting with severe ischemia and recrudescence of symptoms (Rutherford 4–6) were included in the current analysis. Two cohorts of patients were analysed: patients who underwent OS and patients that underwent pMTH. Primary clinical outcomes were one-year cumulative patency and limb salvage rates. Total cost was calculated as a sum of intra- and post-operative costs. To weigh clinical benefits against the economic consequences of OS versus pMTH a cost-effectiveness framework was adopted. Results: We analysed a series of 48 occluded bypasses 17 treated with open surgery and 31 with pMTH. Procedural success was 100% in both groups. When comparing one-year death rates ( p-value = .22) and re-occlusion rates ( p-value = .43), no statistically significant differences were observed between the two cohorts. Mean patency duration in the surgery cohort was significantly shorter ( p-value < .05). Primary patency (OS 41.2% vs. pMTH 48.4%) and limb salvage rate (OS 88.2% vs. pMTH 90.3%) at one year are similar in both groups. The total cost of surgery was substantially higher (OS 10,159€ vs. pMTH 8,401€) Conclusions: This pilot study, although limited to 48 occluded bypasses, demonstrates that endovascular treatment with pMTH is less invasive, less time consuming and less expensive, and produces greater health benefits than traditional OS.