Association Between Wearable Device-Based Measures of Physical Frailty and Major Adverse Events Following Lower Extremity Revascularization

IMPORTANCE

Physical frailty is a key risk factor associated with higher rates of major adverse events (MAEs) after surgery. Assessing physical frailty is often challenging among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) who are often unable to perform gait-based assessments because of the presence of plantar wounds.

OBJECTIVE

To test a frailty meter (FM) that does not rely on gait to determine the risk of occurrence of MAEs after revascularization for patients with CLTI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included 184 consecutively recruited patients with CLTI at 2 tertiary care centers. After 32 individuals were excluded, 152 participants were included in the study. Data collection was conducted between May 2018 and June 2019.

EXPOSURES

Physical frailty measurement within 1 week before limb revascularization and incidence of MAEs for as long as 1 month after surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The FM works by quantifying weakness, slowness, rigidity, and exhaustion during a 20-second repetitive elbow flexion-extension exercise using a wrist-worn sensor. The FM generates a frailty index (FI) ranging from 0 to 1; higher values indicate progressively greater severity of physical frailty.

RESULTS

Of 152 eligible participants (mean [SD] age, 67.0 [11.8] years; 59 [38.8%] women), 119 (78.2%) were unable to perform the gait test, while all could perform the FM test. Overall, 53 (34.9%), 58 (38.1%), and 41 (27.0%) were classified as robust (FI <0.20), prefrail (FI ≥0.20 to <0.35), or frail (FI ≥0.35), respectively. Within 30 days after surgery, 24 (15.7%) developed MAEs, either major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; 8 [5.2%]) or major adverse limb events (MALE; 16 [10.5%]). Baseline demographic characteristics were not significantly different between frailty groups. In contrast, the FI was approximately 30% higher in the group that developed MAEs (mean [SD] score, 0.36 [0.14]) than those who were MAE free (mean [SD] score, 0.26 [0.13]; P = .001), with observed MAE rates of 4 patients (7.5%), 7 patients (12.1%), and 13 patients (31.7%) in the robust, prefrail and frail groups, respectively (P = .004). The FI distinguished individuals who developed MACE and MALE from those who were MAE free (MACE: mean [SD] FI score, 0.38 [0.16]; P = .03; MALE: mean [SD] FI score, 0.35 [0.13]; P = .004) after adjusting by body mass index.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, measuring physical frailty using a wrist-worn sensor during a short upper extremity test was a practical method for stratifying the risk of MAEs following revascularization for CLTI when the administration of gait-based tests is often challenging.

Safety and efficacy of an endovascular-first approach to acute limb ischemia

BACKGROUND

The optimal techniques to manage acute limb ischemia (ALI) remain unclear. Previous reports have suggested that the decreased morbidity and mortality of endovascular approaches are mitigated by the limited technical success rates relative to open or hybrid approaches for ALI. However, these data failed to include newer technologies that might improve the technical success rates. We, therefore, sought to describe the current outcomes for an endovascular-first approach to ALI.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, single-arm, retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with ALI from 2015 to 2018. Technical success, limb salvage, survival, patency, and length of stay were quantified using Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis. Cox regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of amputation-free survival.

RESULTS

During the 3 years, 60 consecutive patients (39 men [65%]; median age, 65 years) presented with ALI. The Rutherford class was I in 15 patients (25%), IIa in 23 (38%), IIb in 13 (22%), and III in 9 patients (15%). Of the 60 patients, 34 had a history of previous failed ipsilateral revascularization (56%), including open bypass for 8 (13%), endovascular for 8 (13%), and both open and endovascular intervention for 18 (30%). The endovascular-first approach procedures included catheter-directed thrombolysis only (n = 19; 3%), catheter-directed thrombolysis plus aspiration and/or rheolytic thrombectomy (n = 19; 32%), and aspiration and/or rheolytic thrombectomy (n = 16; 26%). Six patients (10%) underwent covered stent placement only. The underlying occlusive process was most often thrombosis of a previous bypass graft or stent in 32 patients (53%), followed by native vessel thrombosis in 15 (25%). ALI had resulted from embolism in 13 patients (21.7%), including 2 (3%) with embolization to occlude a previous bypass graft or stent. Technical success was achieved in 58 patients (97%), with open conversion required in two patients (3%). At 30 days postoperatively, 52 patients (87%) survived, and 53 (88%) had successful limb salvage. Five patients (8%) had required four-compartment fasciotomy. No major hemorrhagic complications developed. The median length of stay overall and in the intensive care unit was 9 days (interquartile range, 4-14 days) and 2 days (interquartile range, 1-5 days), respectively. At 1 year, the KM estimates were as follows: amputation-free survival, 58% ± 0.08%; limb salvage, 74.3% ± 0.07%; and survival, 73.3% ± 0.07%. The 1-year KM estimates for primary and secondary patency were 39.4% ± 0.08% and 78.2% ± 0.07%, respectively. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, only age independently predicted for death and/or amputation at the last follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The current endovascular approaches to ALI have high technical success rates. Survival, limb salvage, perioperative complications, and length of stay were similar to those from previous reports of historical open cohorts. Further prospective, appropriately powered, multicenter cohort studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy of endovascular vs open approaches to ALI.

Endovascular Therapy in an "All-Comers" Risk Group for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Demonstrates Safety and Efficacy When Compared with the Established Performance Criteria Proposed by the Society for Vascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to describe the applicability of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) objective performance goals (OPGs) as a tool to evaluate results in the context of endovascular management of noncomplex and complex patients (i.e., end stage renal disease/history of prosthetic conduit) with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with CLTI undergoing endovascular procedures from March 2016 to April 2017 were included, and medical records were examined. Patients were categorized as OPG risk (OPGR) and non-OPG risk (nOPGR) groups in accordance with the SVS performance criteria. We compared clinical events between the two groups and then further to the SVS OPGs. Thirty-day outcomes (safety) were major amputation (AMP), major adverse limb events (MALEs), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and 1-year outcomes (efficacy) were limb salvage, MALE + 30-day perioperative death (MALE + POD), and survival. Mortality was demonstrated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients were included (OPGR = 58.3% vs. nOPGR = 41.7%). Mean follow-up was 20 months (range, 1-40 months). Retrograde pedal access was used in 65.2% of patients. The overall AMP rate was 2.7% (OPGR = 4.7%, nOPGR = 0%, P = 0.225, vs. SVS OPG<3%), MALE was 4.1% (OPGR = 7.1%, nOPGR = 0%, P = 0.135, vs. SVS OPG<8%), and MACE was 6.9% (OPGR = 2.3%, nOPGR = 13.3%, P = 0.071, vs. SVS OPG<8%). The limb salvage was 90.3% (OPGR = 88%, nOPGR = 93.3%, P = 0.46, vs. SVS OPG>84%), MALE + POD was 76.4% (OPGR = 78.6%, nOPGR = 73.4%, P = 0.606, vs. SVS OPG>71%), and survival was 77.7% (OPGR = 83.3%, nOPGR = 70%, P = 0.18, vs. SVS OPG>80%).

CONCLUSIONS

The SVS OPGs set appropriate safety and efficacy standards as a bar for new technologies. In this series, endovascular therapy in all-comers exceeded the safety and efficacy endpoints proposed by the limited risk OPG panel.