Long-term outcomes of elective endovascular vs open repair of popliteal artery aneurysms in the VISION database

Background: The best modality for elective popliteal artery aneurysm repair (PAR) remains controversial. Most single-center studies suggest that open popliteal aneurysm repair (OPAR) is more durable than endovascular PAR (EPAR), but large, randomized, multicenter studies are lacking. This study compares long-term outcomes of EPAR and OPAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative—Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION) database. Methods: 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 1159 PARs (65.1% open). EPAR patients were older (77 years vs 73 years; P < .001) and more likely to be on P2Y12 inhibitors (26.5% vs 17.0%; P < .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 < .001) and have a shorter hospital length of stay (1 day vs 3 days; P < .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 with EPAR showed that OPAR with GSV bypass was associated with lower mortality without difference in reintervention or major amputation. Conclusions: Elective EPAR is durable and comparable with OPAR in terms of limb outcomes, even when GSV is used as conduit. However, bypass with GSV was associated with increased survival after open PAR compared with endovascular therapy.