Long-Term Outcomes of Elective Endovascular versus Open Repair of Popliteal Artery Aneurysms in the VISION Database.

Introduction: The best modality for elective popliteal artery aneurysm repair (PAR) remains controversial. Most single center studies suggest open popliteal aneurysm repair (OPAR) is more durable than endovascular (EPAR), but large randomized multicenter studies are lacking. This study compares long-term outcomes of EPAR and OPAR in the VQI-VISION database.

Methods: Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Medicare-linked VISION database (2010-2019) for peripheral vascular interventions and infrainguinal bypass were reviewed for elective PAR. Patients undergoing OPAR and EPAR were propensity-matched to compare outcomes.

Results: There were 1,159 PAA repairs (65.1% open). EPAR patients were older (77 vs 73 years, p<0.001) and more likely to be on P2Y12 inhibitors (26.5% vs 17.0%, p<0.001). After matching, there were 396 patients in each group with similar baseline characteristics. EPAR patients were more likely to be discharged home (87.6% vs 48.5%, p<0.001) and have shorter hospital length-of-stay (1 vs 3 days, p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves showed no difference in mortality, reintervention, or major amputation at 1, 3, and 5 years. Cox proportional hazards regression showed no significant association between revascularization strategy and mortality, reintervention, or major amputation. Subgroup analysis of patients undergoing OPAR with great saphenous vein (GSV) bypass compared to EPAR showed that OPAR with GSV bypass was associated with lower mortality without difference in reintervention or major amputation.

Conclusion: Elective EPAR is durable and comparable to OPAR in terms of limb outcomes, even when GSV is used as conduit. However, bypass with GSV was associated with increased survival after open popliteal aneurysm repair compared to endovascular therapy.