Endovascular Versus Open Revascularization for Peripheral Arterial Disease.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine whether endovascular or 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-free 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.