Impact of operative approach and patient frailty on outcomes for aorto-iliac occlusive disease with critical limb threatening ischemia.

ObjectivesMultiple treatment modalities exist for the management of aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD) including endovascular (endo), extra-anatomic bypass (EAB), and anatomic bypass (AB). The goal of this study was to examine the impact of revascularization strategy and patient frailty on outcomes for AIOD in patients with critical limb threatening ischemia (CLTI).MethodsPatients undergoing revascularization for CLTI and AIOD were identified from the NSQIP database over 5 years. Demographics, procedural characteristics, and outcomes were recorded. Modified frailty index (mFI-5) was calculated for each patient. Patients were compared based on the type of procedure and frailty (mFi>0.6).ResultsFrom 2017 to 2021, 1777 patients underwent revascularization for CLTI from AIOD. Patients were majority male (56%) with a mean age of 68. A total of 1346 patients (76%) underwent an open operation of which 669 were EAB. When endo (431 patients) was compared with open repair, endo was associated with a higher incidence of tissue loss at presentation (42% vs 33%, p < 0.001), lower rates of bleeding (6.5% vs 15.5%, p < 0.001), fewer MI/stroke (1.6% vs 4.6%, p = 0.004), and fewer wound complications (2.6% vs 11.2%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in re-intervention, amputation, or death based on frailty. For frail patients (184 patients), type of repair did not impact re-intervention, major amputation, or mortality, though there was increased MI/stroke with EAB and increased wound complications with AB/EAB.ConclusionsAIOD revascularization strategies for patients with CLTI have similar 30-day re-intervention, major amputation, and mortality rates. Endovascular repair has less surgical wound complications and is better suited for frail patients.