National Trends and Outcomes of Pedal Bypass Surgery.

Objective: The technical demands associated with pedal bypass (PB) surgery place it at risk of underutilization and may be limiting its widespread adoption as a valuable revascularization modality. This study aims to evaluate trends in PB performance, assess its outcomes, and compare its results between high- and low-volume centers.

Methods: All patients receiving a PB between 2003 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) infrainguinal bypass (IIB) module. The ratio of PB to total IIB performed was calculated for each year and trended over the study period. Centers performing PB were categorized according to their annual PB volume into tertiles of low-volume centers (LVC, <2 PB/year), medium-volume centers (MVC, 2-4 PB/year), and high-volume centers (HVC, >4 PB/year) for comparison. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared using the χ² or Fisher exact test as appropriate for categorical variables and the analysis of variance test or Kruskal-Wallis test as appropriate for continuous variables. Cox regression analysis was used to study the association between center volume and the primary outcomes of primary patency, primary-assisted patency, secondary patency, reintervention, amputation, and major adverse limb events (MALE), defined as the composite outcome of amputation and/or reintervention.

Results: A total of 3466 patients received a PB during the study period. The ratio of PB to IIB dropped from 14% to 4% between 2003 and 2023. Primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency rates were 65%, 76%, and 80%, respectively, and limb salvage rate was 83% at 1 year. Nineteen percent of centers performing IIBs in the VQI did not perform any PBs during the study period. Of the 246 centers performing PBs, 78% were LVC, 15% were MVC, and only 7% were HVC. On Cox regression analysis, HVCs were associated with a lower risk of primary patency loss (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.95; P = .010), reintervention (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P = .016), amputation (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98; P = .034), and MALE (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P = .005) compared with LVCs. No difference in secondary patency between high- and low-volume centers was observed (P = .680).

Conclusions: The utilization of PB operations experienced a four-fold decrease over the past 20 years, despite favorable patency and limb salvage outcomes. Centers with a higher operative volume in PB achieve better outcomes than LVCs, and accordingly, patients with extensive tibioperoneal disease may benefit from evaluation at centers with documented expertise in PB before resorting to an alternative revascularization modality or a major limb amputation.