Journal of vascular surgery · 2016
Clinical results of single-vessel versus multiple-vessel infrapopliteal intervention.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Darling Jeremy D, McCallum John C, Soden Peter A, Hon John J, Guzman Raul J, Wyers Mark C, Verhagen Hence J, Schermerhorn Marc L
Аннотация
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.
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.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAged, 80 and overAmputation, SurgicalAngioplastyBostonChi-Square DistributionDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansIntermittent ClaudicationIschemiaKaplan-Meier EstimateLimb SalvageLower ExtremityMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPeripheral Arterial DiseasePopliteal ArteryProportional Hazards ModelsRetreatmentRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUltrasonography, Doppler, DuplexVascular PatencyWound Healing