Journal of vascular surgery · 2024
Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous deep venous arterialization in multiple practice settings.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saini Neginder, Marrone Laura, Desai Sanket, Herman Kevin C, Rundback John H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy of percutaneous deep venous arterialization (pDVA) in patients with no-option chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the hospital vs in office-based laboratory (OBL) settings.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent pDVA using off-the-shelf devices from January 2018 to March 2023 in a hospital and an OBL. We identified 73 eligible patients, 41 from a hospital setting (59% male; median age, 72 years; interquartile range, 18 years) and 32 from an OBL setting (59% males; 67 years; interquartile range, 16 years). All eligible patients were deemed to have no-option critical limb ischemia, had at least one patent proximal tibial artery available for the creation of an arteriovenous anastomosis, and were classified as having Rutherford classification IV or higher peripheral arterial disease. Patients were ineligible if classified as Rutherford classification III or lower, had active infection, did not have at least one appropriate venous target, and/or had rapidly progressing wounds requiring immediate major amputation. The primary outcome was major amputation-free survival (AFS). Secondary outcomes included technical success, limb salvage, survival, primary patency, reintervention rate, adverse events, and partial and complete wound healing. Outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank, and two-stage procedure tests.
RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 70 patients (96%) with 1 hospital (2.4%) and 2 OBL (6.3%) patients lost to follow-up. Major AFS estimates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 51.4%, 40.4%, and 30.2% in the hospital group and 69.4%, 54.0%, and 49.5% in the OBL group, respectively. Partial wound healing estimates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 27.5%, 71.7%, and 81.2% in the hospital group and 62.7% at all time points in the OBL group. Complete wound healing estimates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 6.7%, 33.3%, and 33.3% in the hospital group and 5.3%, 37.7%, and 41.6% in the OBL group, respectively. There was no significant difference in major AFS (P = .13), limb salvage (P = .07), survival (P = .69), primary patency (P = .53), partial (P = .08), or complete wound healing (P = .79) between groups. Reintervention was performed in 8 hospital (20.5%) and 14 OBL (45.2%) patients.
CONCLUSIONS: pDVA is a feasible and safe procedure for no-option critical limb ischemia in the hospital and OBL setting without significant differences in outcomes at ≤2 years.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent pDVA using off-the-shelf devices from January 2018 to March 2023 in a hospital and an OBL. We identified 73 eligible patients, 41 from a hospital setting (59% male; median age, 72 years; interquartile range, 18 years) and 32 from an OBL setting (59% males; 67 years; interquartile range, 16 years). All eligible patients were deemed to have no-option critical limb ischemia, had at least one patent proximal tibial artery available for the creation of an arteriovenous anastomosis, and were classified as having Rutherford classification IV or higher peripheral arterial disease. Patients were ineligible if classified as Rutherford classification III or lower, had active infection, did not have at least one appropriate venous target, and/or had rapidly progressing wounds requiring immediate major amputation. The primary outcome was major amputation-free survival (AFS). Secondary outcomes included technical success, limb salvage, survival, primary patency, reintervention rate, adverse events, and partial and complete wound healing. Outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank, and two-stage procedure tests.
RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 70 patients (96%) with 1 hospital (2.4%) and 2 OBL (6.3%) patients lost to follow-up. Major AFS estimates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 51.4%, 40.4%, and 30.2% in the hospital group and 69.4%, 54.0%, and 49.5% in the OBL group, respectively. Partial wound healing estimates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 27.5%, 71.7%, and 81.2% in the hospital group and 62.7% at all time points in the OBL group. Complete wound healing estimates at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 6.7%, 33.3%, and 33.3% in the hospital group and 5.3%, 37.7%, and 41.6% in the OBL group, respectively. There was no significant difference in major AFS (P = .13), limb salvage (P = .07), survival (P = .69), primary patency (P = .53), partial (P = .08), or complete wound healing (P = .79) between groups. Reintervention was performed in 8 hospital (20.5%) and 14 OBL (45.2%) patients.
CONCLUSIONS: pDVA is a feasible and safe procedure for no-option critical limb ischemia in the hospital and OBL setting without significant differences in outcomes at ≤2 years.