Major amputation is often selected over infrainguinal bypass in patients with severe systemic comorbidities because it is assumed to have lower perioperative risks, yet this assumption is unproven and largely unexamined.
Methods
The 2005 to 2008 National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database was used to identify all patients undergoing either infrainguinal bypass or major amputation using procedural codes. Patients with systemic or local infections were excluded. A subset of high-risk patients were then defined as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 4 or 5, or ASA class 3 with renal failure, dyspnea at rest, ventilator dependence, recent congestive heart failure, or recent myocardial infarct. Propensity score matching was used to obtain two high-risk patient groups matched for preoperative characteristics.
Results
No significant differences in demographic, preoperative, or anesthetic variables were found between the matched, high-risk amputation or bypass groups (792 and 780 patients, respectively). Bypass was associated with a lower 30-day postoperative mortality than amputation (6.54% vs 9.97%; P = .0147). Amputation was associated with higher rates of pulmonary embolism (0.9% vs 0% for amputation vs bypass groups, respectively; P = .009) and urinary tract infection (5.2% vs 2.7%; P = .01), while bypass was associated with higher rates of return to the operating room (14.1% vs 27.6%; P < .001) and a trend toward higher postoperative transfusion requirements (0.9% vs 2.1%; P = .054). The postoperative time to discharge did not differ between the two groups.
Conclusion
The decision to perform an infrainguinal bypass or amputation should depend on well-established predictors of graft patency and functional success rather than presumptions about different perioperative risks between the two procedures.
Cited by (0)
Additional material for this article may be found online at www.jvascsurg.org.
Conflicts of interest: none.
The editors and reviewers of this article have no relevant financial relationships to disclose per the JVS policy that requires reviewers to decline review of any manuscript for which they may have a competition of interest.
