Endovascular Versus Open Revascularization For Peripheral Arterial Disease

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether endovascular open revascularization provides an advantageous approach to symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) over the longer term.Summary of Background Data: The optimal revascularization strategy for symptomatic lower extremity PAD is not established.Methods: We evaluated amputation-Cree survival, overall survival, and relative rate of subsequent vascular intervention after endovascular or open lower extremity revascularization for propensity-score matched cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries with PAD from 2006 through 2009.Results: Among 14,685 eligible patients, 5928 endovascular and 5928 open revascularization patients were included in matched analysis. Patients undergoing endovascular repair had improved amputation-free survival compared with open repair at 30 days (7.4 vs 8.9%, P = 0.002). This benefit persisted over the long term: At 4 years, 49% of endovascular patients had died or received major amputation compared with 54% of open patients (P < 0.001). An endovascular procedure was associated with a risk-adjusted 16% decreased risk of amputation or death compared with open over the study period (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.89; P < 0.001). The amputation-free survival benefit associated with an endovascular revascularization was more pronounced in patients with congestive heart failure or ischemic heart disease than in those without (P = 0.021 for interaction term). The rate of subsequent intervention at 30 days was 7.4% greater for the endovascular vs the open revascularization cohort. At 4 years, this difference remained stable at 8.6%.Conclusions: Using population-based data, we demonstrate that an endovascular approach is associated with improved amputation-free survival over the long term with only a modest relative increased risk of subsequent intervention.