Frank M Davis1, Jeremy Albright2, Katherine A Gallagher1, Hitinder S Gurm2, Gerald C Koenig3, Theodore Schreiber4, P Michael Grossman2, Peter K Henke5. 1. Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI. 5. Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: henke@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute limb ischemia (ALI) of the lower extremity is a potentially devastating condition that requires urgent and definitive management. This challenging scenario is often treated with endovascular, open surgical, or hybrid revascularization (HyR) in an urgent basis, but the comparative effects of such therapies remain poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of endovascular, open surgical, and HyR for ALI in the contemporary era. METHODS: A large statewide cardiovascular consortium of 45 hospitals was queried for patients between January 2012 and June 2015 who underwent an endovascular, open surgical, or HyR for ALI deemed at high risk of limb loss if not treated within 24 hr (Rutherford class IIA or IIB). A propensity score weighted analysis was performed controlling for demographics, medical history, and procedure type for patients. The primary outcomes were 30-day morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1,480 patients underwent endovascular revascularization (ER; n = 818), open surgical revascularization (OSR; n = 195), or hybrid revascularization (HyR; n = 467) for ALI. The mean age was similar across revascularization technique with an increased predominance of male gender in open surgery cohort. Comorbidities for all groups were consistent with peripheral arterial disease. The most common endovascular procedures were angioplasty (93%) and thrombolysis (49.8%), whereas the most common surgical revascularization was femoral to popliteal bypass (32.8%), femoral to tibial bypass (28.2%), and thrombectomy (19.0%); ER as compared with OSR and HyR procedures was associated with less transfusion (OSR versus ER, odds ratio [OR] 2.7; HyR versus ER, OR 2.8; P < 0.001) and major amputation (OSR versus ER, OR 3.4; HyR versus ER, OR 4.0; P < 0.001) within 30 days of intervention. There was no difference in 30-day freedom from reintervention, myocardial infarction (MI), or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients requiring urgent revascularization for Rutherford grade IIA and IIB ischemia, ER has lower 30-day morbidity but similar mortality and rates of reintervention. Although long-term patency rates were not compared, ER may offer superior short-term outcomes compared with open surgery and hybrid revascularization.
BACKGROUND: Acute limb ischemia (ALI) of the lower extremity is a potentially devastating condition that requires urgent and definitive management. This challenging scenario is often treated with endovascular, open surgical, or hybrid revascularization (HyR) in an urgent basis, but the comparative effects of such therapies remain poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of endovascular, open surgical, and HyR for ALI in the contemporary era. METHODS: A large statewide cardiovascular consortium of 45 hospitals was queried for patients between January 2012 and June 2015 who underwent an endovascular, open surgical, or HyR for ALI deemed at high risk of limb loss if not treated within 24 hr (Rutherford class IIA or IIB). A propensity score weighted analysis was performed controlling for demographics, medical history, and procedure type for patients. The primary outcomes were 30-day morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1,480 patients underwent endovascular revascularization (ER; n = 818), open surgical revascularization (OSR; n = 195), or hybrid revascularization (HyR; n = 467) for ALI. The mean age was similar across revascularization technique with an increased predominance of male gender in open surgery cohort. Comorbidities for all groups were consistent with peripheral arterial disease. The most common endovascular procedures were angioplasty (93%) and thrombolysis (49.8%), whereas the most common surgical revascularization was femoral to popliteal bypass (32.8%), femoral to tibial bypass (28.2%), and thrombectomy (19.0%); ER as compared with OSR and HyR procedures was associated with less transfusion (OSR versus ER, odds ratio [OR] 2.7; HyR versus ER, OR 2.8; P < 0.001) and major amputation (OSR versus ER, OR 3.4; HyR versus ER, OR 4.0; P < 0.001) within 30 days of intervention. There was no difference in 30-day freedom from reintervention, myocardial infarction (MI), or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients requiring urgent revascularization for Rutherford grade IIA and IIB ischemia, ER has lower 30-day morbidity but similar mortality and rates of reintervention. Although long-term patency rates were not compared, ER may offer superior short-term outcomes compared with open surgery and hybrid revascularization.