A comparative cohort study of totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass for the treatment of advanced atherosclerosis

Syed S H Kazmi, Jørgen Junkichi Jørgensen, Jon Otto Sundhagen, Anne Helene Krog, Tor L Flørenes, Dagfinn Kollerøs, Michael Abdelnoor, Syed S H Kazmi, Jørgen Junkichi Jørgensen, Jon Otto Sundhagen, Anne Helene Krog, Tor L Flørenes, Dagfinn Kollerøs, Michael Abdelnoor

Abstract

Background: Totally laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABF) procedure has been shown to be feasible for the treatment of advanced aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). This study compares the LABF with the open aortobifemoral bypass (OABF) operation.

Methods: In this prospective comparative cohort study, 50 consecutive patients with type D atherosclerotic lesions in the aortoiliac segment were treated with an LABF operation. The group was compared with 30 patients who were operated on with the OABF procedure for the same disease and time period. We had an explanatory strategy, and our research hypothesis was to compare the two surgical procedures based on a composite event (all-cause mortality, graft occlusion, and systemic morbidity). Stratification analysis was performed by using the Mantel-Haenszel method with the patient-time model. Cox multivariate regression method was used to adjust for confounding effect after considering the proportional hazard assumption. Cox proportional cause-specific hazard regression model was used for competing risk endpoint.

Results: There was a higher frequency of comorbidity in the OABF group. A significant reduction of composite event, 82% (hazard ratio 0.18; 95% CI 0.08-0.42, P=0.0001) was found in the LABF group when compared with OABF group, during a median follow-up time period of 4.12 years (range from 1 day to 9.32 years). In addition, less operative bleeding and shorter length of hospital stay were observed in the LABF group when compared with the OABF group. All components of the composite event showed the same positive effect in favor of LABF procedure.

Conclusion: LABF for the treatment of AIOD, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II type D lesions, seems to result in a less composite event when compared with the OABF procedure. To conclude, our results need to be replicated by a randomized clinical trial.

Keywords: aortic surgery; aortobifemoral bypass; aortoiliac atherosclerosis; atherosclerosis; competing risk analysis; laparoscopy; minimally invasive surgery.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the comparative cohort study. Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass versus open aortobifemoral bypass during the period 2005–2011. Abbreviations: ABFB, aortobifemoral bypass; AIOD, aortoiliac occlusive disease; TASC, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Survival analysis. Notes: (A) Survival freedom from composite event in the 80 patients’ cohort, operated with totally laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (n=50) and open aortobifemoral bypass (n=30). Median follow-up time period of 4.12 years (range from 1 day to 9.3 years). (A) Composite event. (B) Graft thrombosis. (C) Systemic complications. (D) Mortality.

References

    1. Dion YM, Griselli F, Douville Y, Langis P. Early and mid-term results of totally laparoscopic surgery for aortoiliac disease: lessons learned. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2004;14(6):328–334.
    1. Coggia M, Javerliat I, Di Centa I, et al. Total laparoscopic bypass for aortoiliac occlusive lesions: 93-case experience. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(5):899–906.
    1. Cau J, Ricco JB, Corpataux JM. Laparoscopic aortic surgery: techniques and results. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48(6 Suppl):37S–44S. discussion 5S.
    1. Kazmi SSH, Sundhagen JO, Flørenes TL, Kroese AJ, Jørgensen JJ. Laparoskopisk aortakirurgi. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen. 2007;127(11):1518–1520.
    1. Bruls S, Quaniers J, Tromme P, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass in the treatment of aortoiliac disease. Results of a contemporary series (2003–2009) Acta Chir Belg. 2012;112(1):51–58.
    1. Kashyap VS, Pavkov ML, Bena JF, et al. The management of severe aortoiliac occlusive disease: endovascular therapy rivals open reconstruction. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48(6):1451–1457. 1457.e1–e3.
    1. Tsetis D, Uberoi R. Quality improvement guidelines for endovascular treatment of iliac artery occlusive disease. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31(2):238–245.
    1. Pulli R, Dorigo W, Fargion A, et al. Early and long-term comparison of endovascular treatment of iliac artery occlusions and stenosis. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53(1):92–98.
    1. Kim TH, Ko YG, Kim U, et al. Outcomes of endovascular treatment of chronic total occlusion of the infrarenal aorta. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53(6):1542–1549.
    1. Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Dormandy JA, Nehler MR, Harris KA, Fowkes FG. Inter-society consensus for the management of peripheral arterial disease (TASC II) J Vasc Surg. 2007;45(Suppl S):S5–S67.
    1. Kolvenbach R, Puerschel A, Fajer S, et al. Total laparoscopic aortic surgery versus minimal access techniques: review of more than 600 patients. Vascular. 2006;14(4):186–192.
    1. Rutherford RB, Baker JD, Ernst C, et al. Recommended standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia: revised version. J Vasc Surg. 1997;26(3):517–538.
    1. Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. Survival Analysis: A Self-learning Text. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2011.
    1. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic Research: Principles and Quantitative Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1982.
    1. Kirkwood BR. Essentials of Medical Statistics. Carlton, VIC: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2003.
    1. Wolbers M, Koller MT, Stel VS, et al. Competing risks analysis: objectives and approaches. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(42):2936–2941.
    1. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) Points to Consider on Multiplicity Issues in Clinical Trials. London: The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products; [Accessed July 1, 2015]. Available from .
    1. Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289(19):2554–2559.
    1. Skali H, Solomon SD, Pfeffer MA. Are we asking too much of our trials? Am Heart J. 2002;143(1):1–3.
    1. Nio D, Diks J, Bemelman WA, Wisselink W, Legemate DA. Laparoscopic vascular surgery: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;33(3):263–271.
    1. Alimi YS, Mouret F, Garitey V, Rieu R. Laparoscopic aortic surgery: recent development in instrumentation. Surg Technol Int. 2005;14:253–261.
    1. de Vries SO, Hunink MG. Results of aortic bifurcation grafts for aortoiliac occlusive disease: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg. 1997;26(4):558–569.
    1. Fourneau I, Lerut P, Sabbe T, Houthoofd S, Daenens K, Nevelsteen A. The learning curve of totally laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass for occlusive disease. How many cases and how safe? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;35(6):723–729.
    1. Fourneau I, Marien I, Remy P, et al. Conversion during laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass: a failure? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;39(2):239–245.
    1. Tiek J, Remy P, Sabbe T, et al. Laparoscopic versus open approach for aortobifemoral bypass for severe aorto-iliac occlusive disease – a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;43(6):711–715.
    1. McKinlay JB. From “promising report” to “standard procedure”: seven stages in the career of a medical innovation. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1981;59(3):374–411.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj