LAUSR

prior endovascular group. These results were stratified by current treatment modality (open vs endovascular), and amputation rates remained higher in the prior bypass group regardless of current salvage treatment (Table). Risk adjustment with multivariable regression revealed prior endovascular intervention to yield a protective effect on amputation (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.76), loss of patency (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.97), and reintervention (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.70). Conclusions: Urgent or emergent ipsilateral reinterventions following a surgical bypass have greater limb morbidity than those following an endovascular intervention before and after risk adjustment. The reason for this is unclear but may be related to loss of collaterals, thrombus burden, or embolization differences at the time of failure. These data show greater salvage rates following contemporary endovascular intervention than prior smaller reports, supporting the endovascular-first approach.