Comparison of patient outcomes following endovascular vs surgical management of infrainguinal autogenous bypass stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of open vs endovascular intervention for infrainguinal bypass stenosis. Methods A single-institution retrospective review of infrainguinal bypass stenosis cases from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, was conducted. Data collected included index bypass operation, lesion characteristics, reintervention, and patient outcomes. Results Of the 146 patients included, 40% underwent open intervention, whereas 60% underwent endovascular intervention. There were no significant differences between the index bypasses of each cohort with respect to inflow, outflow, conduit, or primary patency. The severity of stenotic lesions in open and endovascular cohorts was >70% severity on duplex ultrasound in 76% and 78% of patients, respectively ( P = .02). Lesion location was not significantly different between cohorts with 48% proximal, 27% distal, 8% midgraft, 3% venovenostomy, and 14% multiple stenotic lesions. There was no significant difference in primary revision patency in open vs endovascular intervention (1109 vs 809 days; P = .09). The average number of repeat interventions was not significantly different (0.47 vs 0.58 times; P = .48); however, the average cumulative hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for patients who underwent endovascular intervention (8.21 vs 5.22 days; P = .02). During the study period, a comparable portion of patients in open and endovascular cohorts went on to have failed bypass grafts (17% vs 18%) with no significant difference in the total time to graft failure in these subgroups (860 vs 1144 days; P = .47). There were no significant differences in major adverse limb events (12% vs 8%; P = .59) or mortality (47% vs 40%; P = .52). Conclusions Open and endovascular interventions for infrainguinal bypass stenosis showed no significant differences in primary revision patency, graft failure rates, major adverse limb events, or mortality. Endovascular intervention was associated with shorter cumulative hospital stays for reintervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".