Jeremy D Darling1, John C McCallum1, Peter A Soden1, John J Hon2, Raul J Guzman1, Mark C Wyers1, Hence J Verhagen3, Marc L Schermerhorn4. 1. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 2. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH. 3. Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: mscherme@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The effects of concomitant endovascular interventions on multiple infrapopliteal vessels are not well known, and the short-term and long-term sequelae of such procedures have not been reported. METHODS: From 2004 to 2014, 673 limbs in 528 patients underwent an infrapopliteal endovascular intervention for tissue loss (77%), rest pain (13%), stenosis of a previously treated vessel (5%), acute limb ischemia (3%), or claudication (2%). Outcomes included wound healing, RAS events (reintervention, major amputation, or stenosis [>3.5x step-up by duplex]), and mortality. Patients without an initial indication of critical limb ischemia (CLI) were excluded. Patients were characterized as having undergone either a single-vessel infrapopliteal intervention or a multiple-vessel infrapopliteal intervention. RESULTS: Of the 673 limbs, 558 underwent a successful infrapopliteal endovascular intervention for CLI (86% for tissue loss, 14% for rest pain). During a single procedure, 503 limbs (90%) underwent a single-vessel intervention and 55 (10%) underwent a multiple-vessel intervention. Patients undergoing a single-vessel intervention more commonly underwent a prior ipsilateral endovascular procedure (17% vs 6%; P = .03) or a prior ipsilateral bypass procedure (20% vs 9%; P = .04). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that a RAS event ≤1 year occurred in 229 limbs (49%), with no significant difference in the 1-year rates of reintervention (22% vs 20%; P = .53), major amputation (16% vs 10%; P = .24), or stenosis (29% vs 21%; P = .25). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, multivariable regression illustrated that neither major amputation rates nor RAS events differed between patients undergoing a single-vessel vs a multiple-vessel intervention (P = .26 and P = .61, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that a multiple-vessel intervention does not improve outcomes when compared to a single-vessel intervention following infrapopliteal angioplasty for CLI.
OBJECTIVE: The effects of concomitant endovascular interventions on multiple infrapopliteal vessels are not well known, and the short-term and long-term sequelae of such procedures have not been reported. METHODS: From 2004 to 2014, 673 limbs in 528 patients underwent an infrapopliteal endovascular intervention for tissue loss (77%), rest pain (13%), stenosis of a previously treated vessel (5%), acute limb ischemia (3%), or claudication (2%). Outcomes included wound healing, RAS events (reintervention, major amputation, or stenosis [>3.5x step-up by duplex]), and mortality. Patients without an initial indication of critical limb ischemia (CLI) were excluded. Patients were characterized as having undergone either a single-vessel infrapopliteal intervention or a multiple-vessel infrapopliteal intervention. RESULTS: Of the 673 limbs, 558 underwent a successful infrapopliteal endovascular intervention for CLI (86% for tissue loss, 14% for rest pain). During a single procedure, 503 limbs (90%) underwent a single-vessel intervention and 55 (10%) underwent a multiple-vessel intervention. Patients undergoing a single-vessel intervention more commonly underwent a prior ipsilateral endovascular procedure (17% vs 6%; P = .03) or a prior ipsilateral bypass procedure (20% vs 9%; P = .04). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that a RAS event ≤1 year occurred in 229 limbs (49%), with no significant difference in the 1-year rates of reintervention (22% vs 20%; P = .53), major amputation (16% vs 10%; P = .24), or stenosis (29% vs 21%; P = .25). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, multivariable regression illustrated that neither major amputation rates nor RAS events differed between patients undergoing a single-vessel vs a multiple-vessel intervention (P = .26 and P = .61, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that a multiple-vessel intervention does not improve outcomes when compared to a single-vessel intervention following infrapopliteal angioplasty for CLI.
Authors: Richard F Neville; Christopher E Attinger; Erwin J Bulan; Ivica Ducic; Michael Thomassen; Anton N Sidawy Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Charles S Joels; John W York; Corey A Kalbaugh; David L Cull; Eugene M Langan; Spence M Taylor Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Kristina A Giles; Frank B Pomposelli; T L Spence; Allen D Hamdan; Seth B Blattman; Haig Panossian; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2008-05-23 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: E Faglia; G Clerici; J Clerissi; M Mantero; M Caminiti; A Quarantiello; V Curci; T Lupattelli; A Morabito Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2007-06-08 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Marcello Romiti; Maximiano Albers; Francisco Cardoso Brochado-Neto; Anai Espinelli S Durazzo; Carlos Alberto Bragança Pereira; Nelson De Luccia Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Syed N Haider; Eamon G Kavanagh; Martin Forlee; Mary P Colgan; Prakash Madhavan; Dermot J Moore; Gregor D Shanik Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.268