A Comparison of Outcomes After Lower Extremity Bypass and Repeat Endovascular Intervention Following Failed Previous Endovascular Intervention for Critical Limb Ischemia

Impact of rural status on lower extremity bypass outcomes for patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies noted that the rural population experienced higher peripheral artery disease (PAD) related mortality than their urban counterparts. Our study aimed to assess the impact of rural status on lower extremity bypass (LEB) outcomes for patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI).

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) registry data from 2016 to 2022. Primary exposure included patient's residence based on rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) codes. Primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes include 30-day and 1-year mortality, hospital readmission, bypass revision, wound complications, amputations, and 30-day renal failure requiring dialysis. We conducted univariate and multivariate analysis to evaluate association between rural status and LEB outcomes.

RESULTS

Rural patients tended to be White (p<.001), had insurance (p<.001), were current smokers (p<.001), had hyperlipidemia (p<.001), prior CHF (p=.031), COPD (p<.001), prior CVD/TIA (p=.005), and take pre-procedure aspirin (p=.011) and statin (p=.007), and were less likely to live in a distressed community (p<.001). They were not at increased risks of 30-day and 1-year MACE. They had higher odds of bypass revision (p=.028) at 1-year. However, they did not have higher odds of amputation at 30-days and 1-year.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural status does not impact LEB outcomes. Rural patients achieve comparable outcomes compared their urban counterparts due to overwhelmingly White rural demographics, optimal medical therapy, socioeconomic status (SES) and increased healthcare utilization.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy versus surgical revascularization for critical limb-threatening ischemia: A systematic review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a severe manifestation of peripheral artery disease (PAD) that can lead to limb amputation and significantly reduce quality of life. In addition to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization are the two revascularization options for CLTI. In recent years, there has been an ongoing debate about the best approach for CLTI patients. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the current evidence and compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization for CLTI.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for studies comparing the outcomes of endovascular therapy versus surgery in patients with CLTI. The primary outcomes were major adverse limb events (MALE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), while secondary outcomes included risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and length of hospital stay. Pooled data was analyzed using the fixed-effect model or the random-effect model in Review Manager 5.3. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool were used to assess the bias of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (47,609 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall effect favors surgery over endovascular intervention in terms of MALE [odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% CI (1.01-1.28), P = 0.04]. Endovascular therapy is associated with lower MACE rates compared to surgery [OR 0.62, 95% CI (0.51-0.76), P < 0.00001]. Furthermore, the risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure as well as the length of hospital stay was lower for endovascular intervention. Finally, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups [OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.12, P = 0.52; Fig. 3i], and the pooled studies were homogeneous [P = 0.39; I2 = 5%].

CONCLUSION

Surgery may be the preferred treatment option for CLTI patients, as it is associated with a lower risk of MALE than endovascular therapy. However, endovascular therapy may be associated with a lower risk of MACE and lower rates of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and shorter hospital stays. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups. Ultimately, the decision to use endovascular therapy or surgery as the primary treatment strategy should be based on a multi-disciplinary team approach with careful consideration of patient characteristics and anatomy.

Outcomes and Patency of Endovascular Infrapopliteal Reinterventions in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia

PURPOSE

Endovascular revascularization is the preferred treatment to improve perfusion of the lower extremity in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Patients with CLTI often present with stenotic-occlusive lesions involving the infrapopliteal arteries. Although the frequency of treating infrapopliteal lesions is increasing, the reintervention rates remain high. This study aimed to determine the outcomes and patency of infrapopliteal endovascular reinterventions.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicenter cohort study of 3 Dutch hospitals included patients who underwent an endovascular infrapopliteal reintervention in 2015 up to 2021 after a primary infrapopliteal intervention for CLTI. The outcome measures after the reintervention procedures included technical success rate, the mortality rate and complication rate (any deviation from the normal postinterventional course) at 30 days, overall survival, amputation-free survival (AFS), freedom from major amputation, major adverse limb event (MALE), and recurrent reinterventions (a reintervention following the infrapopliteal reintervention). Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine risk factors for AFS and freedom from major amputation or recurrent reintervention.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients with CLTI were included. A total of 87 limbs underwent an infrapopliteal reintervention in which 122 lesions were treated. Technical success was achieved in 99 lesions (81%). The 30-day mortality rate was 1%, and the complication rate was 13%. Overall survival and AFS at 1 year were 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-79%) and 54% (95% CI, 37%-67%), respectively, and those at 2.5 years were 45% (95% CI, 33%-56%) and 21% (95% CI, 11%-33%), respectively. Freedom from major amputation, MALE, and recurrent reinterventions at 1 year and 2.5 years were 59% (95% CI, 46%-70%) and 41% (95% CI, 25%-56%); 54% (95% CI, 41%-65%) and 36% (95% CI, 21%-51%); and 68% (95% CI, 55%-78%) and 51% (95% CI, 33%-66%), respectively. A Global Limb Anatomic Staging System score of III showed an increased hazard ratio of 2.559 (95% CI, 1.078-6.072; p=0.033) for freedom of major amputation or recurrent reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that endovascular infrapopliteal reinterventions can be performed with acceptable 30-day mortality and complication rates. However, outcomes and patency were moderate to poor, with low AFS, high rates of major amputations, and recurrent reinterventions.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This multicenter retrospective study evaluating outcome and patency of endovascular infrapopliteal reinterventions for CLTI, shows that endovascular infrapopliteal reinterventions can be performed with acceptable 30-day mortality and complication rates. However, the short- and mid-term outcomes of the infrapopliteal reinterventions were moderate to poor, with low rates of AFS and a high need for recurrent reinterventions. While the frequency of performing infrapopliteal reinterventions is increasing with additional growing complexity of the disease, alternative treatment options such as venous bypass grafting or deep venous arterialization may be considered and should be studied in randomized controlled trials.

Comparison of Subsequent Inframalleolar Bypass Surgery and Repeat Endovascular Therapy for Infrapopliteal Restenosis in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Undergoing Primary Endovascular Therapy

PURPOSE

Although endovascular therapy (EVT) is considered a vital strategy for treating infrapopliteal lesions in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), the recurrence rate after EVT exceeds that after bypass surgery (BSX). The optimal approach for managing infrapopliteal lesion recurrence in patients with CLTI and unhealed ulcers remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of repeat EVT and subsequent inframalleolar BSX for CLTI with infrapopliteal lesion recurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 140 patients with CLTI (mean age, 70±10 years; male, 71.4%; diabetes mellitus, 73.6%; dialysis, 74.3%; Rutherford 5, 79.3%; and Rutherford 6, 20.7%) who had an unhealed wound due to the recurrence of infrapopliteal lesions between January 2015 and May 2020. We compared the clinical outcomes of 40 patients who underwent the subsequent inframalleolar BSX with those of 100 patients who underwent repeat EVT. The outcome measures were amputation-free survival (AFS) and wound healing rate. Propensity score matching analysis was conducted to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching extracted 38 pairs (38 patients in the subsequent BSX group and 83 patients in the repeat EVT group). AFS was not significantly different between the repeat EVT and subsequent BSX groups (81.9% vs 82.6% at 1 year, p=0.97). Neither was cumulative wound healing (42.8% vs 43.3% at 1 year, p=0.55). No baseline characteristics had any significant interaction effect on the association between repeat EVT, subsequent BSX, and failure of AFS.

CONCLUSION

This study using propensity score matching revealed that the clinical outcomes following repeat EVT were comparable with those following subsequent inframalleolar BSX, indicating that repeat EVT may be a viable treatment option for CLTI with infrapopliteal lesion recurrence.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Although endovascular therapy (EVT) has expanded the treatment options for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), the recurrence rate after EVT is higher than that after bypass surgery (BSX). This retrospective study compared the clinical outcomes of repeat EVT with those of subsequent BSX for CLTI with infrapopliteal lesion recurrence. After propensity score matching, amputation-free survival (AFS) was not significantly different between the repeat EVT and subsequent BSX groups (81.9% vs 82.6% at 1 year, p=0.97). Neither was cumulative wound healing (42.8% vs 43.3% at 1 year, p=0.55). There was no difference between the 2 revascularization strategies when treating infrapopliteal restenosis lesions.