The Contemporary Role of Stents and Angioplasty for the Treatment of Infrapopliteal Disease in Critical Limb Ischemia

Revascularization of multiple tibial arteries is not associated with improved limb salvage

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the benefit of performing multiple tibial artery revascularization compared with single vessel revascularization for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of all patients with CLTI treated with below-the-knee endovascular intervention from 2012 to 2019. Group 1 included patients who had undergone single tibial artery revascularization. Group 2 included patients who had undergone multiple (two or more) tibial artery revascularization. More proximal disease, if present, was treated, in addition to the tibial disease. The primary endpoint was freedom from amputation. The secondary endpoints included the reintervention rates and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 527 limbs in 470 patients with CLTI (nonhealing ulcers, 62%; gangrene, 33%; and ischemic rest pain, 5%) were included in the present study. Of the 527 limbs, 245 (46%) had undergone single vessel revascularization and 282 (54%) had undergone multiple vessel revascularization. The mean follow-up was 19 ± 18 months. No difference was found in freedom from amputation between the two groups (68% vs 63%; P = .109). On multivariable analysis, the factors associated with amputation included dialysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.45), dyslipidemia (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.96-1.94), and gangrene (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.50-2.98). No differences were found in the reintervention rates between the two groups (21.2% vs 16.7%; P = .13). The overall survival rate was 73% in both study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the present large, single-center study have demonstrated that multiple below-the-knee vessel revascularization is not associated with improved limb salvage compared with single vessel revascularization.

Antiplatelet therapy for tibial balloon angioplasty: A clinical perspective

Percutaneous transluminal tibial balloon angioplasty has an important role in the therapeutic approach of critical limb ischaemia. Despite a growing number of patients with critical limb ischaemia, there are no trials to guide the pharmacologic approach post intervention. Guidelines pertaining to the antiplatelet therapy post percutaneous transluminal tibial balloon angioplasty have not been developed. In addition, critical limb ischaemia patients have multiple comorbidities and a higher risk of bleeding. To examine the shortest duration of antiplatelet therapy post percutaneous transluminal tibial balloon angioplasty, we reviewed the preclinical data used to develop the standards for the current angioplasty technique.

Revisiting endovascular treatment in below-the-knee disease. Are drug-eluting stents the best option?

Patients with below-the-knee arterial disease are primarily individuals suffering from critical limb ischemia (CLI), while a large percentage of these patients are also suffering from diabetes or chronic renal failure or both. Available data from randomized controlled trials and their meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of infrapopliteal drug-eluting stents (DES), in short- to medium- length lesions, obtains significantly better results compared to plain balloon angioplasty and bare metal stenting with regards to vascular restenosis, target lesion revascularization, wound healing and amputations. Nonetheless, the use of this technology in every-day clinical practice remains limited mainly due to concerns regarding the deployment of a permanent metallic scaffold and the possibility of valid future therapeutic perspectives. However, in the majority of the cases, these concerns are not scientifically justified. Large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trials, investigating a significantly larger number of patients than those already published, would provide more solid evidence and consolidate the use of infrapopliteal DES in CLI patients. Moreover, there is still little evidence on whether this technology can be as effective for longer below-the-knee lesions, where a considerable number of DES is required. The development and investigation of new, longer balloon-expanding or perhaps self-expanding DES could be the answer to this problem.

Lower extremity bypass and endovascular intervention for critical limb ischemia fail to meet Society for Vascular Surgery's objective performance goals for limb-related outcomes in a contemporary national cohort

OBJECTIVE

In 2009, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) developed objective performance goals (OPGs) to define the therapeutic benchmarks in critical limb ischemia (CLI) based on outcomes from randomized trials of lower extremity bypass (LEB). Current performance relative to these benchmarks in both LEB and infrainguinal endovascular intervention (IEI) remains unknown. The objective of this study was to determine whether LEB and IEI performed for CLI in a contemporary national cohort met OPG 30-day safety thresholds.

METHODS

SVS OPG criteria were applied to 11,043 revascularizations for CLI performed from 2011 to 2015 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) vascular targeted modules. Primary 30-day safety OPGs including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), major adverse limb events (MALEs), and amputation were calculated for the NSQIP LEB (n = 3833) and IEI (n = 3526) cohorts as well as for subgroups at "high anatomic risk" (infrapopliteal revascularization) and "high clinical risk" (age >80 years and tissue loss). These were compared with SVS OPG benchmarks using χ² comparisons.

RESULTS

Compared with the SVS OPG cohort, both the NSQIP LEB and IEI cohorts had fewer patients at high anatomic risk (LEB, 51%; IEI, 27%; SVS OPG, 60%; both P < .0001). The LEB cohort had fewer patients with high clinical risk than the SVS OPG cohort (LEB, 11%; SVS OPG, 16%; P < .0001). The 30-day MALE was significantly higher in the NSQIP LEB (9.0% [8.7%-9.2%]) and IEI (9.7% [9.4%-10.0%]) cohorts compared with the SVS OPG cohort (6.1% [4.7%-9.0%]; both P ≤ .007), including significantly higher rates of amputation. MACE was significantly lower in the NSQIP LEB (4.2% [4.1%-4.3%]) and IEI (3.1% [3.0%-3.2%]) cohorts compared with the SVS OPG cohort (6.1% [4.7%-8.1%]; both P ≤ .013). Among patients at high anatomic risk, 30-day MALE was significantly higher after LEB (9.5% [9.1%-9.8%]) and IEI (11.1% [10.4-11.8%]) compared with the SVS OPG cohort (6.1% [4.2%-8.6%]; P ≤ .002). Among patients with high clinical risk, IEI was associated with lower MACE compared with the SVS OPG cohort, with similar limb-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary real-world practice, LEB and IEI for CLI failed to meet SVS OPG limb-related 30-day safety benchmarks for the entire CLI cohort as well as for the patients at high anatomic risk. Additional investigation using SVS OPGs as consistent end points is required to determine why limb-related outcomes after revascularization for CLI remain suboptimal. LEB and IEI surpassed OPG benchmarks for 30-day cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. OPGs for cardiovascular morbidity in patients undergoing revascularization for CLI deserve re-evaluation using contemporary data.