Vascular · 2022
Contemporary outcomes of initial treatment strategy of endovascular intervention or bypass in patients with critical limb ischemia.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Qato Khalil, Bahroloomi Donna, Conway Allan, Lu Eileen, Pamoukian Vicken, Giangola Gary, Carroccio Alfio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The optimal management for revascularization after critical limb ischemia (CLI) is controversial due to limited studies comparing long-term results of endovascular and open techniques. This study compares long-term outcomes after initial management of CLI via lower extremity bypass (LEB) and percutaneous vascular intervention (PVI).
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study investigates outcomes of patients who underwent endovascular or open surgical management for CLI at a single institution from 2013-2018. All patients with diagnosis of CLI were included and separated based on initial therapy of PVI or LEB. Demographic, procedural, and follow-up data were assessed. Primary endpoints included major adverse limb events (MALE), specifically the need for major amputation and reintervention. Secondary endpoints included mortality at 30 days and one year. A multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard regression model was used to assess the relationship between Surgery group and time to MALE/death while controlling for confounding variables.
RESULTS: This study identified 338 patients with an initial diagnosis of CLI who underwent either LEB (n = 108, 32%) or PVI (n = 230, 68%). The average age was 71.4, 54.4% were male, 30% were African American, 53.6% were diabetic, and 93.2% had hypertension. Patients who underwent LEB were more predominantly smokers (p = .003) and less predominantly on dialysis at time of surgery (p = .01). Re-intervention rates in the bypass group (11%) were not significantly different than the PVI group (9%; p = .95). In the bypass group, 20 (19%) patients had a major amputation with a median time of 189.5 days compared to 23 (10%) patients at a median time of 113 days in the PVI group; however, this difference was not significant (p = .16). There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between the LEB (2%) and PVI group (4%; p = .2). The cumulative incidence of MALE/death at 30 days was 4.0% in the bypass group and 3.7% in the PVI group (p = .2). Incidences of MALE/death were 21.1% and 48.5% in the bypass group and 19.7 and 45.9% in the PVI group at one and 2 years, respectively. Intervention type was not found to be significantly associated with MALE/death after controlling for possible confounders (HR = 0.82, p = .43).
CONCLUSIONS: In the initial management of CLI, there is no significant difference in long-term outcomes in terms of major amputation, need for reintervention, limb-salvage, and 1-year mortality.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study investigates outcomes of patients who underwent endovascular or open surgical management for CLI at a single institution from 2013-2018. All patients with diagnosis of CLI were included and separated based on initial therapy of PVI or LEB. Demographic, procedural, and follow-up data were assessed. Primary endpoints included major adverse limb events (MALE), specifically the need for major amputation and reintervention. Secondary endpoints included mortality at 30 days and one year. A multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard regression model was used to assess the relationship between Surgery group and time to MALE/death while controlling for confounding variables.
RESULTS: This study identified 338 patients with an initial diagnosis of CLI who underwent either LEB (n = 108, 32%) or PVI (n = 230, 68%). The average age was 71.4, 54.4% were male, 30% were African American, 53.6% were diabetic, and 93.2% had hypertension. Patients who underwent LEB were more predominantly smokers (p = .003) and less predominantly on dialysis at time of surgery (p = .01). Re-intervention rates in the bypass group (11%) were not significantly different than the PVI group (9%; p = .95). In the bypass group, 20 (19%) patients had a major amputation with a median time of 189.5 days compared to 23 (10%) patients at a median time of 113 days in the PVI group; however, this difference was not significant (p = .16). There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between the LEB (2%) and PVI group (4%; p = .2). The cumulative incidence of MALE/death at 30 days was 4.0% in the bypass group and 3.7% in the PVI group (p = .2). Incidences of MALE/death were 21.1% and 48.5% in the bypass group and 19.7 and 45.9% in the PVI group at one and 2 years, respectively. Intervention type was not found to be significantly associated with MALE/death after controlling for possible confounders (HR = 0.82, p = .43).
CONCLUSIONS: In the initial management of CLI, there is no significant difference in long-term outcomes in terms of major amputation, need for reintervention, limb-salvage, and 1-year mortality.