Endovascular Treatment as an Alternative to Bypass Surgery for Juxtarenal Aortic Occlusion: Results from the CHAOS (CHronic Abdominal Aortic Occlusion, ASian Multicenter) Registry

Background Juxtarenal aortic occlusion (JRAO), in which the occlusion of the aorta extends to just below the renal artery, is often treated by bypass surgery because of concerns about the risk of procedural failure and fatal embolization to abdominal organs when treated with endovascular treatment (EVT). This study assessed the outcome of EVT for JRAO compared with aorto-biiliac/femoral (AOB) or axillo-bifemoral (AXB) bypass. Methods A retrospective review of an international database created by 30 centers in Asia (CHAOS [CHronic Abdominal Aortic Occlusion, ASian Multicenter] registry) was performed for patients who underwent revascularization for chronic total occlusion (CTO) of the infrarenal aorta from 2007 to 2017. Of the 436 patients, 130 with JRAO (Forty-seven AOBs, 32 AXBs, and 51 EVTs) from 25 institutions were included in this study. Results Patients were significantly older in the AXB and EVT groups and more malnourished in the EVT group than the AOB group. EVT was attempted but failed in one patient. Seven patients (1 [2.1%] in the AOB group, 1 [3.1%] in the AXB group, and 5 [9.8%] in the EVT group) died during hospitalization, but most of the causes in the EVT group were not related to the revascularization procedure. No visceral embolism was observed, which had been concerned, even though protection was performed only in two cases of the EVT group. At the latest follow-up (median duration 3.0 years), the ankle-brachial pressure index was significantly higher in the order of AOB, EVT, and AXB. At four years, the estimated primary and secondary patency rates of the AOB group (87.5% and 90.3%, respectively) were significantly higher than the AXB group (66.7% and 68.6%, respectively). Conclusions AOB remains the gold standard and should be the first choice for acceptable risk patients. For frail patients, EVT is a good option and likely preferable as a first-line treatment compared to AXB.