Popliteal Versus Tibial Retrograde Access for Subintimal Arterial Flossing with Antegrade–Retrograde Intervention (SAFARI) Technique

ObjectiveThis study aimed to ascertain differences in benefit and effectiveness of popliteal versus tibial retrograde access in subintimal arterial flossing with the antegrade–retrograde intervention (SAFARI) technique.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of SAFARI-assisted stenting for long chronic total occlusion (CTO) of TASC C and D superficial femoral lesions. 38 cases had superficial femoral artery lesions (23 TASC C and 15 TASC D). All 38 cases underwent SAFARI-assisted stenting. The ipsilateral popliteal artery was retrogradely punctured in 17 patients. A distal posterior tibial (PT) or dorsalis pedis (DP) artery was retrogradely punctured in 21 patients, and 16 of them were punctured after open surgical exposure.ResultsSAFARI technical success was achieved in all cases. There was no significant difference in 1-year primary patency (75% vs. 78.9%, p = .86), secondary patency (81.2% vs. 84.2%, p = .91) and access complications (p = 1.00) between popliteal and tibial retrograde access. There was statistical difference in operation time between popliteal (140.1 ± 28.4 min) and tibial retrograde access with PT/DP punctures after surgical vessel exposure (120.4 ± 23.0 min, p = .04).ConclusionThe SAFARI technique is a safe and feasible option for patients with infrainguinal CTO (TASC II C and D). The PT or DP as the retrograde access after surgical vessel exposure is a good choice when using the SAFARI technique.