Background: Infrarenal aortic occlusion (IAO) is a life-threatening condition that often causes lower limb ischemia. Although open surgery is the current recommendation for first-line treatment, recent technological innovations have made endovascular treatment (EVT) a promising alternative. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of bypass surgery and EVT in the treatment of IAO.Methods: This study is a single-center retrospective observative study at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Consecutive 92 patients with chronic and atherosclerotic IAO were treated with either EVT (n=40) or bypass surgery (n=52) between 2011 and 2021. The baseline clinical factors (including demographic data and comorbidities), perioperative data (including Rutherford classification changes, technical success) and complication rates were evaluated. The mid-term patency and overall survival of EVT and bypass were assessed. Follow-up was defined as the time from surgery to the last outpatient visit. Continuous variables and category variables were statistically compared, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted for vascular patency.Results: The study found that the demographics and pre-operative Rutherford classification were evenly distributed between the two groups (P>0.05). As for technical success, clinical success, comorbidities, mortality, complication rate, and Rutherford classification after procedures, no significant differences were observed (P>0.05). The average post-procedure hospital stay was 5.15 days in the EVT group and was significantly shorter than that of the bypass group, which was 11.83 days (P<0.0001). As for short-term and long-term results, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year primary patency rates were 81.8%, 73.1%, and 73.1% in the EVT group and 97.8%, 80.6%, and 80.6% in the bypass group. The bypass group had significantly better primary patency (P=0.034). There was a significant difference in the secondary patency rate (Bypass 100% vs. EVT 81.6%; P=0.005). Moreover, survival rates were higher in the bypass surgery group than in the EVT group (P=0.035).Conclusions: Although EVT's primary patency rate was lower than that with the bypass surgery, its safety and efficacy were still comparable to anatomic bypass surgery for IAO with less severe perioperative complications and shorter hospital stay. Therefore, EVT could be a feasible option for IAO.