OBJECTIVES: Duplex ultrasound scanning (DUS) has benefit for intraoperative and subsequent evaluation of surgical bypasses in the lower extremities. The utility of DUS after endovascular revascularizations is not established. This study was performed to evaluate whether DUS findings after infrainguinal endovascular interventions for critical limb ischemia (CLI) were predictive of need for reintervention or amputation. METHODS: To identify the study cohort, peripheral interventions for CLI (Rutherford grades 4, 5, 6) over a 24-month period (2006-2007) were reviewed. DUS findings were considered indicative of hemodynamic stenosis if the peak systolic velocity (PSV) was ≥ 180 cm/s or the PSV velocity ratio was ≥ 2.0. Demographic, clinical, procedural, and outcomes were examined. SVS and TASC II classifications and reporting standards were used. Arteriograms were reviewed and treated segments were categorized as patent (<30% residual stenosis) or abnormal (≥ 30% residual stenosis). RESULTS: There were 122 infrainguinal interventions for CLI in 113 patients (53% male; mean age 71 years). Risk factors included diabetes: 61%; renal failure: 20%; and smoking (within 1 year): 40%. DUS was performed within 30 days of the index procedure in 90 cases. Fifty patients had an abnormal early duplex and 40 patients had a normal duplex. In patients with a normal duplex ultrasound the amputation rate was 5% vs 20% in the group with an abnormal duplex (P = .04). Primary patency was 56% in the normal duplex group and 46% in the abnormal duplex group (P = .18). Early duplex ultrasound was able to identify a residual stenosis not seen on completion angiography in 56% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Duplex scanning detects residual stenosis missed with conventional angiography after infrainguinal interventions. An abnormal DUS in the first 30 days after an intervention is associated with an increased risk of amputation. This suggests a possible role for intraprocedural DUS, as well as routine postprocedure DUS, close clinical follow-up, and consideration of reintervention for residual abnormalities in patients treated for CLI.
OBJECTIVES: Duplex ultrasound scanning (DUS) has benefit for intraoperative and subsequent evaluation of surgical bypasses in the lower extremities. The utility of DUS after endovascular revascularizations is not established. This study was performed to evaluate whether DUS findings after infrainguinal endovascular interventions for critical limb ischemia (CLI) were predictive of need for reintervention or amputation. METHODS: To identify the study cohort, peripheral interventions for CLI (Rutherford grades 4, 5, 6) over a 24-month period (2006-2007) were reviewed. DUS findings were considered indicative of hemodynamic stenosis if the peak systolic velocity (PSV) was ≥ 180 cm/s or the PSV velocity ratio was ≥ 2.0. Demographic, clinical, procedural, and outcomes were examined. SVS and TASC II classifications and reporting standards were used. Arteriograms were reviewed and treated segments were categorized as patent (<30% residual stenosis) or abnormal (≥ 30% residual stenosis). RESULTS: There were 122 infrainguinal interventions for CLI in 113 patients (53% male; mean age 71 years). Risk factors included diabetes: 61%; renal failure: 20%; and smoking (within 1 year): 40%. DUS was performed within 30 days of the index procedure in 90 cases. Fifty patients had an abnormal early duplex and 40 patients had a normal duplex. In patients with a normal duplex ultrasound the amputation rate was 5% vs 20% in the group with an abnormal duplex (P = .04). Primary patency was 56% in the normal duplex group and 46% in the abnormal duplex group (P = .18). Early duplex ultrasound was able to identify a residual stenosis not seen on completion angiography in 56% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Duplex scanning detects residual stenosis missed with conventional angiography after infrainguinal interventions. An abnormal DUS in the first 30 days after an intervention is associated with an increased risk of amputation. This suggests a possible role for intraprocedural DUS, as well as routine postprocedure DUS, close clinical follow-up, and consideration of reintervention for residual abnormalities in patients treated for CLI.
Authors: Gregory G Westin; Ehrin J Armstrong; Usman Javed; Christopher R Balwanz; Haseeb Saeed; William C Pevec; John R Laird; David L Dawson Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Manuel Hernando Rydings; Pilar Marín Palacios; Ana M Aragón-Sánchez; Esther Bravo Ruiz; Victor Lopez-Dominguez; Isaac Martínez López; Cristina Fernández Pérez; Amaia Bilbao González; Francisco Javier Serrano Hernando; Reyes Vega Manrique; Antonio Hernando Grande Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 5.501