Indirect Endovascular Revascularization via Collaterals: A New Classification to Predict Wound Healing and Limb Salvage

Perfusion increase in foot angiosomes: Comparison between direct and indirect revascularization of crural arteries

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In retrospective studies, wound healing and leg salvage have been better if revascularization is targeted to the crural artery supplying arterial flow to the wound angiosome. No data exist on how revascularization changes the blood flow in foot angiosomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in perfusion after infrapopliteal artery revascularization in all foot angiosomes and to compare directly revascularized (DR) angiosomes to the indirectly revascularized (IR) angiosomes.

METHODS

In this prospective study, foot perfusion was measured with indocyanine green fluorescence imaging (ICG-FI) before and after either surgical or endovascular below-knee revascularization. According to angiograms, we divided the foot angiosomes into DR and IR angiosomes. Furthermore, in a subanalysis, the IR angiosomes were graded as IR_Coll+ angiosomes if there were strong collaterals arising from the artery which was revascularized, and as IR_Coll- angiosomes if strong collaterals were not seen.

RESULTS

A total of 72 feet (28 bypass, 44 endovascular revascularizations) and 282 angiosomes were analyzed. Surgical and endovascular revascularization increased perfusion significantly in both DR and IR angiosomes. After bypass surgery, the increase in DR angiosomes was 55 U and 53 U in IR angiosomes; there were no significant difference in the perfusion increase between IR and DR angiosomes. After endovascular revascularization, perfusion increased significantly more, 40 U, in DR angiosomes compared to 26 U in IR angiosomes (p < 0.05). In the subanalysis of IR angiosomes, perfusion increased significantly after surgical bypass regardless of whether strong collaterals were present or not. After endovascular revascularization, however, a significant perfusion increase was noted in the IR_Coll+ but not in the IR_Coll- subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Open revascularization increased perfusion equally in DR and IR angiosomes, whereas endovascular revascularization increased perfusion significantly more in DR than in IR angiosomes. Strong collateral network may help increase perfusion in IR angiosomes.

Implications of Single-Vessel Runoff on Long-Term Outcomes of Free Tissue Transfer for Lower Extremity Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

 Patients with complex lower extremity (LE) wounds and single-vessel LE runoff (1-VRO) are often considered for amputation. While more challenging, free tissue transfer (FTT) is a means for limb salvage. This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility of limb salvage with FTT in patients with 1-VRO.

METHODS

 Patients undergoing FTT by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included demographics, wound characteristics, vascular status, and operative details. Patients were divided into cohorts based on 1- versus 3-VRO of tibial vessel inflow. Outcomes of interest included postoperative complications such as flap necrosis, flap success, limb salvage, and ambulatory status.

RESULTS

 A total of 188 patients underwent FTT to LE, with 25 patients (13.3%) having 1-VRO. Patients with 1-VRO had a comparable prevalence of diabetes (56.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.569) and end-stage renal disease (8.0% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.319). Osteomyelitis was more common in the 1-VRO group (80.0% vs. 60.1%, p = 0.056). FTT donor sites and flap composition were similar between cohorts. At mean follow-up of 21.2 months (interquartile range 24.5:5.6, 30.1 months), limb salvage rates were similar between cohorts (84.0% vs. 91.4%, p = 0.241), with no significant differences in ambulatory status or mortality. Higher complication rates occurred in the 1-VRO cohort (48.0% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.004), of which partial flap necrosis was more prevalent in the 1-VRO group (8.0% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.029). There was no difference in flap success rates between groups (p = 0.805). More postflap angiograms were performed in the 1-VRO group (32.0% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.001), but there was no difference in need for repeat percutaneous endovascular intervention between groups.

CONCLUSION

 This study demonstrates that FTT reconstruction to the LE remains a reliable reconstruction option for limb salvage in patients with single-vessel supply to the LE. Reliance on advanced perioperative management and patient optimization is effective at reducing negative outcomes.

Outcomes for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia After Direct and Indirect Endovascular and Surgical Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to determine the clinical outcome differences between patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent direct versus indirect angiosome revascularization using either the surgical or endovascular approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data sources used for article selection included PubMed, Embase/Medline, Cochrane reviews, and Web of Science (All studies were in English and included up to September 2023). All articles included were comparative in design, including retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes between direct and indirect angiosome-guided revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A random-effects model was used to determine the measure of association between direct revascularization and amputation-free survival, wound healing, and overall survival. Publication bias was assessed with both Begg's and Egger's test, and heterogeneity was calculated using an I2.

RESULTS

Data from 9 articles were analyzed and reported in this review. Direct revascularization was associated with improved amputation-free survival (odds ratio [OR]=2.632, confidence interval [CI]: 1.625, 4.265), binary wound healing (OR=2.262, CI: 1.518, 3.372), and overall survival (OR=1.757, CI: 1.176, 2.625). Time until wound healed was not associated with either direct or indirect revascularization (Standard Mean Difference [SMD]=-2.15, p=0.11). There was a low risk of bias across all studies according to the RoB 2.0 tool.

CONCLUSION

Direct revascularization is associated with improved amputation-free survival, overall survival, and wound healing in chronic limb-threatening ischemic patients compared to the indirect approach.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Preservation of the lower extremity is critical for preventing mortality and maintaining independence. The benefit of angiosome-guided revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia remains controversial. The authors of this article aim to review the current literature and compare direct and indirect angiosome-guided intervention for preserving the lower extremity. Current findings suggest direct angiosome-guided intervention reduces amputation rates and improves survival; however, many trials neglect to address the multifactorial approach needed in wound care management.

The intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS guidelines on peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes and a foot ulcer

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this guideline the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

Effectiveness of revascularisation for the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with an increased likelihood of delayed or non-healing of a diabetes-related foot ulcer, gangrene, and amputation. The selection of the most effective surgical technique for revascularisation of the lower limb in this population is challenging and there is a lack of conclusive evidence to support the choice of intervention. This systematic review aimed to determine, in people with diabetes and tissue loss, if direct revascularisation is superior to indirect revascularisation and if endovascular revascularisation is superior to open revascularisation for the outcomes of wound healing, minor or major amputation, and adverse events including mortality.

METHODS

Title and abstract searches of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and EBSCO were conducted from 1980 to 30th November 2022. Cohort and case-control studies and randomised controlled trials reporting comparative outcomes of direct (angiosome) revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR) or the comparative outcomes of endovascular revascularisation and open or hybrid revascularisation for the outcomes of healing, minor amputation, and major amputation in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss (including foot ulcer and/or gangrene) were eligible. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational and cohort studies where details regarding the allocation to intervention groups were not provided.

RESULTS

From a total 7086 abstracts retrieved, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of direct angiosome revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR), and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of endovascular and open revascularisation. One study was included in both comparisons. Of the included studies, 35 were observational (31 retrospective and 4 prospective cohorts) and 1 was a randomised controlled trial. Cohort study quality was variable and generally low, with common sources of bias related to heterogeneous participant populations and interventions and lack of reporting of or adjusting for confounding factors. The randomised controlled trial had a low risk of bias. For studies of DR and IR, results were variable, and it is uncertain if one technique is superior to the other for healing, prevention of minor or major amputation, or mortality. However, the majority of studies reported that a greater proportion of participants receiving DR healed compared with IR, and that IR with collaterals may have similar outcomes to DR for wound healing. For patients with diabetes, infrainguinal PAD, and an adequate great saphenous vein available for use as a bypass conduit who were deemed suitable for either surgical procedure, an open revascularisation first approach was superior to endovascular therapy to prevent a major adverse limb event or death (Hazard Ratio: 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.86). For other studies of open and endovascular approaches, there was generally no difference in outcomes between the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of available evidence for the effectiveness of DR and IR and open and endovascular revascularisation for wound healing and prevention of minor and major amputation and adverse events including mortality in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss is inconclusive, and the certainty of evidence is very low. Data from one high quality randomised controlled trial supports the use of open over endovascular revascularisation to prevent a major limb event and death in people with diabetes, infrainguinal disease and tissue loss who have an adequate great saphenous vein available and who are deemed suitable for either approach.

The intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS guidelines on peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this updated guideline, the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery, and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

The Intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS Guidelines on Peripheral Artery Disease in People With Diabetes Mellitus and a Foot Ulcer

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this updated guideline, the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery, and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease Who Undergo Free Flap Reconstruction for Chronic Lower Extremity Wounds

BACKGROUND

Free tissue transfer (FTT) is critical for limb salvage of chronic lower extremity (LE) wounds. In patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), FTT LE reconstruction can be challenging due to limited vessel selection for anastomosis. The study aims to evaluate our surgical and functional outcomes after FTT to LE in patients with PAD.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified patients who underwent LE free flap reconstruction between 2011 and 2021. All patients underwent preoperative arteriogram and subsequent FTT. Patients were classified into PAD or non-PAD cohorts, based on the presence of LE arterial stenoses or occlusions identified on arteriogram. Primary outcomes included complications, flap success, need for post-FTT vascular reintervention, limb salvage, and ambulatory status.

RESULTS

A total of 253 patients underwent FTT to LE, with 84 patients (33.2%) in the PAD cohort. Patients with PAD had a higher prevalence of diabetes (83.3% vs 39.1%, P < 0.001) and end-stage renal disease (8.3% vs 2.4%, P = 0.028). Osteomyelitis was more common in the PAD group (73.8% vs 55.0%, P = 0.004). Free tissue transfer donor sites and flap composition were similar between cohorts. At a mean follow-up of 21.1 months, limb salvage rates were similar between non-PAD and PAD cohorts (90.5% vs 84.5%, P = 0.158), with no significant differences in ambulatory status or mortality. Higher complication rates occurred in the PAD cohort (38.1% vs 20.7%, P = 0.003), of which partial flap necrosis was more prevalent in the PAD group (6.0% vs 0.6%, P = 0.016). There was no difference in flap success rates between groups (P = 0.430). More postflap angiograms were performed in the PAD group (29.8% vs 7.1%, P < 0.001), with repeat percutaneous endovascular intervention performed in 68.0% of the PAD group versus 33.3% of the non-PAD group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study to demonstrate excellent long-term limb salvage outcomes in patients with PAD who undergo FTT to LE. Percutaneous endovascular intervention and FTT are effective methods to achieve limb salvage in vasculopathic patients with chronic LE wounds.

Limb Salvage in Severe Diabetic Foot Infection

Severe diabetic foot infections (DFI) are both limb threatening and life threatening and associated with negative impact on health-related quality of life. Most severe DFIs require surgical intervention, and the goal of treatment should be preservation of limb function in addition to eradication of infection. Minor amputations are required in approximately 40% and major amputations in approximately 20% of patients. Significant risk factors for lower extremity amputation included male gender, smoking, previous amputation, osteomyelitis, peripheral artery disease, retinopathy, severe infections, gangrene, neuroischemic diabetic foot infections, leukocytosis, positive wound cultures, and isolation of gram-negative bacteria.