Ashraf G Taha1, Raphael M Byrne2, Efthymios D Avgerinos2, Luke K Marone2, Michel S Makaroun2, Rabih A Chaer3. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa; Department of Vascular Surgery, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. 3. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. Electronic address: chaerra@upmc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Thrombolysis and open surgical revascularization are current options for the treatment of acute limb ischemia (ALI). Despite the several randomized controlled trials comparing the two options, no single treatment can yet be recommended as a universal initial management of ALI. The purpose of this study was to evaluate contemporary endovascular and surgical revascularization for ALI. METHODS: Consecutive patients with ALI treated with endovascular revascularization (ER) or open revascularization (OR) between 2005 and 2011 were identified and reviewed. Procedural success and outcomes were compared between the two groups. Limb salvage and survival were assessed by time-to-event methods, including Kaplan-Meier estimation and competing-risks regression models. RESULTS: A total of 154 limbs were treated in 147 patients in the ER group, compared with 326 limbs in 296 patients in the OR group. The mean follow-up was 14 ± 18.5 months. The majority of patients presented with Rutherford II ischemia (83% for OR, 90% for ER). In Rutherford II patients, technical success was achieved in 90.7% of the OR group vs 79.9% of the ER group (P = .002), with amputation rates of 10.0% vs 7.2% (P = .35) at 30 days and 16.3% vs 13.0% (P = .37) at 1 year, respectively. In Rutherford II patients with failed bypass graft, technical success rate was 95.0% (OR) vs 75.0% (ER) (P = .001), whereas the amputation rate was 6.3% vs 15.38% (P = .13) at 30 days and 24.1% vs 23.1% (P = .90) at 1 year, respectively. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 13.2% (OR) and 5.4% (ER) (P = .012). Overall amputation rates were 13.5% (OR) vs 6.5% (ER) at 30 days (P = .023) and 19.6% (OR) vs 13.0% (ER) at 1 year (P = .074). The primary patency rate was 57% (OR) and 51% (ER) at 1 year (P = .74). Predictors of limb loss by life-table analysis included coronary artery disease (hazard ratio [HR], 2.0; P = .007) and Rutherford category III (HR, 19.0; P < .001). Predictors of death by life-table analysis included age (HR, 1.03; P < .001), end-stage renal disease (HR, 7.28; P < .001), cancer (HR, 1.65; P = .005), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.61; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with class II ALI, ER or surgical OR resulted in comparable limb salvage rates. Although technical success is higher with OR for patients presenting with failed bypass grafts, the amputation rates are comparable. Overall mortality rates are significantly higher at 30 days and 1 year in the OR group.
OBJECTIVE: Thrombolysis and open surgical revascularization are current options for the treatment of acute limb ischemia (ALI). Despite the several randomized controlled trials comparing the two options, no single treatment can yet be recommended as a universal initial management of ALI. The purpose of this study was to evaluate contemporary endovascular and surgical revascularization for ALI. METHODS: Consecutive patients with ALI treated with endovascular revascularization (ER) or open revascularization (OR) between 2005 and 2011 were identified and reviewed. Procedural success and outcomes were compared between the two groups. Limb salvage and survival were assessed by time-to-event methods, including Kaplan-Meier estimation and competing-risks regression models. RESULTS: A total of 154 limbs were treated in 147 patients in the ER group, compared with 326 limbs in 296 patients in the OR group. The mean follow-up was 14 ± 18.5 months. The majority of patients presented with Rutherford II ischemia (83% for OR, 90% for ER). In Rutherford II patients, technical success was achieved in 90.7% of the OR group vs 79.9% of the ER group (P = .002), with amputation rates of 10.0% vs 7.2% (P = .35) at 30 days and 16.3% vs 13.0% (P = .37) at 1 year, respectively. In Rutherford II patients with failed bypass graft, technical success rate was 95.0% (OR) vs 75.0% (ER) (P = .001), whereas the amputation rate was 6.3% vs 15.38% (P = .13) at 30 days and 24.1% vs 23.1% (P = .90) at 1 year, respectively. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 13.2% (OR) and 5.4% (ER) (P = .012). Overall amputation rates were 13.5% (OR) vs 6.5% (ER) at 30 days (P = .023) and 19.6% (OR) vs 13.0% (ER) at 1 year (P = .074). The primary patency rate was 57% (OR) and 51% (ER) at 1 year (P = .74). Predictors of limb loss by life-table analysis included coronary artery disease (hazard ratio [HR], 2.0; P = .007) and Rutherford category III (HR, 19.0; P < .001). Predictors of death by life-table analysis included age (HR, 1.03; P < .001), end-stage renal disease (HR, 7.28; P < .001), cancer (HR, 1.65; P = .005), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.61; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with class II ALI, ER or surgical OR resulted in comparable limb salvage rates. Although technical success is higher with OR for patients presenting with failed bypass grafts, the amputation rates are comparable. Overall mortality rates are significantly higher at 30 days and 1 year in the OR group.
Authors: Marie D Gerhard-Herman; Heather L Gornik; Coletta Barrett; Neal R Barshes; Matthew A Corriere; Douglas E Drachman; Lee A Fleisher; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Naomi M Hamburg; Scott Kinlay; Robert Lookstein; Sanjay Misra; Leila Mureebe; Jeffrey W Olin; Rajan A G Patel; Judith G Regensteiner; Andres Schanzer; Mehdi H Shishehbor; Kerry J Stewart; Diane Treat-Jacobson; M Eileen Walsh Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-11-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elizabeth A Genovese; Rabih A Chaer; Ashraf G Taha; Luke K Marone; Efthymios Avgerinos; Michel S Makaroun; Donald T Baril Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 1.466