Long-term outcomes following endovascular and surgical revascularization for peripheral artery disease: a propensity score-matched analysis

Abstract

Abstract Aims Peripheral artery disease (PAD) revascularization can be performed by either endovascular or open surgical approach. Despite increasing use of endovascular revascularization, it is still uncertain which strategy yields better long-term outcomes. Methods and results This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients hospitalized with PAD in Australia and New Zealand who underwent either endovascular or surgical revascularization between 2008 and 2015, and compared procedures using a propensity score-matched analysis. Hybrid interventions were excluded. The primary endpoint was mortality or major adverse limb events (MALE), defined as a composite endpoint of acute limb ischaemia, urgent surgical or endovascular reintervention, or major amputation, up to 8 years post-hospitalization using time-to-event analyses 75 189 patients fulfilled eligibility (15 239 surgery and 59 950 endovascular), from whom 14 339 matched pairs (mean ± SD age 71 ± 12 years, 73% male) with good covariate balance were identified. Endovascular revascularization was associated with an increase in combined MALE or mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09–1.17, P < 0.001]. There was a similar risk of MALE (HR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.99–1.10, P = 0.15), and all-cause urgent rehospitalizations (HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.98–1.04, P = 0.57), but higher mortality (HR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.11–1.21, P < 0.001) when endovascular repair was compared to surgery. In subgroup analysis, these findings were consistent for both claudication and chronic limb-threatening ischaemia presentations. Conclusion Although the long-term risk of MALE was comparable for both approaches, enduring advantages of surgical revascularization included lower long-term mortality. This is at odds with some prior PAD studies and highlights contention in this space.