mhe

Aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) secondary to peripheral arterial disease remains a challenging condition to manage due to anatomical complexities and comorbidities. Operative morbidity and mortality rates are high, and best-practice guidelines have traditionally been limited by a paucity of good quality evidence to aid decision-making. The advent of endovascular technology has enabled the clinician in providing a less invasive option in patients unsuitable for open surgery, but durability of endovascular approaches has remained questionable. However, emerging data on the contemporary management of aortoiliac occlusive disease is demonstrating comparable success rates between open and endovascular surgery. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview on the evolution of techniques, the contemporary management, limitations in the body of evidence and future treatment adjuncts aimed at improving success of intervention in aortoiliac occlusive disease.

PURPOSE: Despite advances in endovascular management of aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD) including covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB) techniques, guidelines for management of symptomatic Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC II) type C/D lesions favour open surgical revascularisation. This meta-analysis investigates outcomes in patients with TASC II C/D lesions treated with open bypass procedures (OS), standard endovascular treatments (SEV) or CERAB.

METHODS: Multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database) were searched to identify studies reporting endovascular and open treatment of extensive AIOD. Studies were independently assessed. Outcomes reported included 30-day morbidity/mortality and patency rates.

RESULTS: A total of 9319 patients undergoing intervention for extensive AIOD were identified from 66 studies. Median patient age was 64 years (n = 3204) for SEV, 58 years (n = 240) for CERAB and 59 years for OS (n = 5875). Pooled meta-analysis for 30-day morbidity in patients undergoing SEV, CERAB and OS was 9, 10 and 15%, respectively. Thirty-day mortality rate was 0.79, 0 and 3% in the SEV, CERAB and OS groups, respectively. In these groups, one-year primary and secondary patency was 90, 88, 96 and 96, 97, and 97% whilst three-year primary and secondary patency was 78, 82, 93 and 93, 97, 97% respectively. Five-year primary and secondary patency was 71 and 89% for SEV and 88 and 95% for OS, respectively. CERAB data were only available to 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that thirty-day morbidity and mortality favours endovascular techniques. Primary patency remains better with OS in both early and midterms;; however, secondary patency is comparable in all groups. These findings suggest that SEV/CERAB may be considered as an alternative to OS in higher-risk patients.