Comparison of Aortobifemoral Bypass and Endovascular Treatment for Chronic Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Occlusion From the CHAOS (CHronic Abdominal Aortic Occlusion, ASian Multicenter) Registry

Purpose: To directly compare the clinical outcomes of aortobifemoral bypass surgery (ABF) and endovascular treatment (EVT) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) of the infrarenal abdominal aorta (IAA). Materials and Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study, we used an international database of 436 patients who underwent revascularization for CTO of the IAA between 2007 and 2017 at 30 Asian cardiovascular centers. After excluding 52 patients who underwent axillobifemoral bypass surgery, 384 patients (139 ABFs and 245 EVTs) were included in the analysis. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to compare clinical results in the periprocedural period and the long-term. Results: Propensity score matching extracted 88 pairs. Procedure time (ABF; 288 [240-345] minutes vs EVT; 159 [100-205] minutes, p<0.001) and length of hospital stay (17 [12-23] days vs 5 [4-13] days, p<0.001) were significantly shorter in the EVT group than in the ABF group, while the proportions of procedural success (98.9% versus 96.6%, p=0.620), complications (9.1% versus 12.3%, p=0.550), and mortality (2.3% versus 3.8%, p=1.000) were not different between the groups. At 1 months, ABI significantly increased more in the ABF group for both in a limb with the lower (0.56 versus 0.50, p=0.018) and the higher (0.49 versus 0.34, p=0.001) baseline ABI, while the change of the Rutherford category was not significantly different between the groups (p=0.590). At 5 years, compared with the EVT group, the ABF group had significantly better primary patency (89.4 +/- 4.3% versus 74.8 +/- 4.3%, p=0.035) and survival rates (86.9 +/- 4.5% versus 66.2 +/- 7.5%, p=0.007). However, there was no significant difference between the groups for secondary patency (100.0%+/- 0.0% versus 93.5%+/- 3.9%, p=0.160) and freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR) (89.3 +/- 4.3% vs 77.3 +/- 7.3%, p=0.096). Conclusion: Even with recent advancements in EVT, primary patency was still significantly better for ABF in CTO of the IAA. However, there was no difference between the groups in terms of secondary patency and freedom from TLR at 5 years. Furthermore, there was no difference in procedural success, complications, mortality, and improvement in the Rutherford classification during the periprocedural period, with significantly shorter procedure time and hospital stay in the EVT group.