Contemporary Endovascular Outcomes for Critical Limb Ischemia Are Still Failing to Meet Society for Vascular Surgery Objective Performance Goals

Contemporary Endovascular 30-Day Outcomes for Critical Limb Threatening Ischemia Relative to Surgical Bypass Grafting

OBJECTIVES

Data from 2011-2014 showed lower extremity bypass(LEB) outperforming infrainguinal endovascular intervention(IEI) regarding major adverse limb events(MALE) but noted no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events(MACE) in propensity matched cohorts. This study aimed to determine if more recent(2015-2018) endovascular outcomes data have improved relative to surgical bypass.

METHODS

Patients who underwent intervention for chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) from 2015-2018 were identified using the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program(NSQIP) Vascular Surgery module. The cohort was categorized as undergoing lower extremity bypass(LEB) or infrainguinal endovascular intervention(IEI). Primary 30-day outcomes included major adverse cardiac events(MACE), major adverse limb events(MALE), and major amputation. Inverse probability weighting was used for multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10,783 patients underwent an infrainguinal intervention for CLTI from 2015-2018. Of these, 6,003(55.7%) underwent LEB and 4,780(44.3%) underwent IEI. Forty percent of the cohort was considered "high anatomic risk" by Objective Performance Goals(OPG) standards, and 13.6% were considered "high clinical risk." The IEI cohort vs. the LEB cohort experienced a Myocardial infarction(MI)/Stroke rate of 1.8% vs. 3.6%(p < .001), and had a mortality rate of 2.0% vs. 1.7%(p = .22), which yielded a composite MACE of 3.4% vs. 4.8%(p = .001). The rate of reintervention for IEI vs LEB was 4.4% vs. 5.3%(p = .04), the loss of patency (without re-intervention) rate was 1.8% vs. 1.8%(p = 1.0), and the major amputation rate was 4.1% vs. 3.5%(p = .15), which resulted in a MALE rate of 9.1% vs. 8.8%(p = .50). Following inverse probability weighting, comparing the IEI to the referent LEB, MALE AOR = 1.17, 95% CI[1.01 -1.36], p = .036, MACE AOR = 0.61, 95% CI[0.49-0.74], p < .001, and major amputation AOR = 1.31, 95% CI[1.05 -1.62], p = .016.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular outcomes continue to demonstrate inferiority in major amputation and overall MALE. However, endovascular intervention has a significantly reduced incidence of MACE. Overall, these results demonstrate an improvement in endovascular MACE rates in recent years relative to surgical bypass.