Bypass Surgery Versus Endovascular Therapy in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients With CLI Due to Infrainguinal Disease

Impact of Hemodialysis on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Lower Extremity Bypass Surgery for Peripheral Artery Disease-10-year Follow-Up Study

We investigated the clinical impact of hemodialysis on long-term outcomes of bypass surgery in patients with peripheral artery disease. We evaluated 660 consecutive patients who underwent successful bypass surgery (392 hemodialysis and 268 non-hemodialysis). The endpoint was amputation-free survival (AFS). To minimize differences in clinical characteristics between the 2 groups, propensity score matching was performed. The AFS rates for 10-year follow-up were 39.3% and 67.7% in hemodialysis and non-hemodialysis patients [hazard ratio (HR) 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.65-3.01, P < .0001]. Cumulative incidence of amputation was higher in the hemodialysis group than in the non-hemodialysis group [(19.4 vs 8.4%, HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.29-3.74, P = .0027). In a matched cohort (n = 210 each), AFS was still lower in the hemodialysis patients (53.1 vs 66.3%, HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.36-2.82, P = .0003). However, there was no significant difference in amputation rate between the groups (10.5 vs 10.6%, HR .97, 95% CI 0.49-1.87, P = .93). In a sub-analysis of patients with critical limb ischemia, similar results were obtained. The 10-year AFS was consistently lower in the hemodialysis group than in the non-hemodialysis group. However, the amputation rate was comparable between the groups when matched for the differences in clinical characteristics.

End-stage renal disease patients undergoing angioplasty and bypass for critical limb ischemia have worse outcomes compared to non-ESRD patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality following lower extremity amputation for critical limb ischemia (CLI). Angioplasty and bypass are used in ESRD patients with CLI; however, the treatment of choice remains controversial. We compared the long-term outcomes in patients with CLI undergoing angioplasty or bypass to evaluate the differences between patients with ESRD and those without ESRD.

METHODS

Established databases were searched for observational studies comparing outcomes following bypass or angioplasty for CLI in patients with ESRD to those in non-ESRD patients. End points included survival, limb salvage, amputation-free survival (AFS), and primary and secondary patency at 1-year post-procedure. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effect model.

RESULTS

We included 20 studies with a total of 24,851 patients. ESRD patients compared to non-ESRD patients with CLI had significantly lower survival post-angioplasty (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.72, p < .001) and post-bypass (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15-0.45, p < .001). ESRD patients had lower rates of limb salvage post-bypass (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.53, p < .001) and post-angioplasty (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.70, p < .001). AFS was significantly lower in ESRD patients compared to non-ESRD patients following angioplasty (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.71, p < .001) and bypass (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16-0.47, p < .001) despite no significant differences in primary patency. ESRD patients had overall worse secondary patency post-angioplasty and/or bypass (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.94, p = .03) compared to non-ESRD patients. A meta-analysis of four studies directly comparing survival in ESRD patients with CLI based on whether they underwent angioplasty or bypass showed no difference (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64-1.35, p = .69).

CONCLUSION

ESRD patients have worse survival, limb salvage, and AFS outcomes following angioplasty and bypass for CLI compared to non-ESRD patients. Large randomized controlled trials comparing these two modalities of treatment in this patient population are needed for further clarity.

Long-term clinical outcomes after self-expandable bare nitinol stent implantation for femoropopliteal occlusive disease in hemodialysis patients

OBJECTIVES

To compare the long-term clinical outcomes after self-expandable bare nitinol stent (BNS) implantation between hemodialysis (HD) and non-HD patients with femoropopliteal (FP) disease.

BACKGROUND

Although a BNS has been commonly used in patients with FP disease, the long-term efficacy of BNSs in HD patients remains unknown.

METHODS

In total, 427 HD patients treated with a BNS for FP disease were enrolled, along with 157 non-HD patients as a control group. Over the following 5 years, the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR), major amputation and mortality was investigated. We also performed propensity-score matching analysis.

RESULTS

The 5-year TLR rate (45.2 vs. 32.5%, p = .013) and mortality rate (39.3 vs. 14.0%, p = .0002) were significantly higher in the HD group than in the non-HD group. The major amputation rate was comparable between the groups (7.2% in the HD group vs. 2.8% in the non-HD group, p = .16). In the propensity-score-matched cohort, the TLR rate, and mortality rate were remained higher in the HD group than in the non-HD group (48.9 vs. 34.1%, hazard ratio [HR] 2.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-3.49, p = .0024, and 47.9 vs. 12.0%, HR 3.38, 95% CI 1.86-6.56, p < .0001, respectively). The adjusted amputation rate was consistently similar between the groups (1.7% in the HD group vs. 2.7% in the non-HD group, HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.26-2.99, p = .86).

CONCLUSIONS

The TLR rate and mortality at 5 years post BNS implantation for FP disease were significantly higher in HD patients than in non-HD patients, though the limb salvage rate was similar.

Percutaneous Vascular Interventions Versus Bypass Surgeries in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to compare percutaneous vascular interventions (PVI) versus bypass surgeries (BSX) in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI).

BACKGROUND

Previous relevant reviews with limited numbers of included studies did not strictly confine the inclusion criteria to CLI, also involving patients with severe claudication, which may introduce bias in the decision-making of CLI revascularization. Current treatment strategies for CLI still remain controversial.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials and observational clinical studies comparing PVI with BSX in CLI patients. Primary endpoints included overall survival, amputation-free survival, 30-day mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events.

RESULTS

We identified 45 cohorts and 1 RCT in over 20,903 patients. In overall population, PVI reduced the risks of 30-day mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.95), major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29-0.61), and surgical site infection (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.19-0.51), but increased the risks of long-term all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.27) and primary patency failure (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.08-1.58). When compared with autogenous BSX, PVI was also associated with additional increased risks of long-term death or amputation (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.02-1.94) and secondary patency failure (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17-1.95). In patients with infrapopliteal lesions, we found PVI had inferior primary patency (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.75) compared with BSX.

CONCLUSION

For patients in good physical condition with long life-expectancy, BSX may represent a better choice compared with PVI, particularly when autogenous bypass is available. While enhanced perioperative care for cardiovascular events and surgical site should be considered in patients underwent BSX to achieve comparable short-term outcomes provided by PVI.

Clinical Outcomes after Isolated Infrapopliteal Revascularization in Hemodialysis Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia: Endovascular Therapy versus Bypass Surgery

AIM

To investigate the long-term clinical outcome of endovascular therapy (EVT) or bypass surgery in patients on hemodialysis (HD) with critical limb ischemia due to isolated infrapopliteal disease.

METHODS

We enrolled 254 consecutive HD patients successfully undergoing infrapopliteal revascularization by EVT (126 patients) and bypass surgery (128 patients). They were followed up for five years. Amputation-free survival (AFS) and incidence of any re-intervention were evaluated. A propensity score from all baseline variables was incorporated into Cox analysis.

RESULTS

In the EVT group, age was higher (p=0.039), diabetes and coronary artery disease were more frequent (p=0.004 and p=0.0052, respectively), and tissue loss was more rarely observed (p＜ 0.0001) than in the bypass group. During the follow-up period, 21 major amputations and 64 deaths occurred. The propensity score-adjusted AFS rate at 5 years was comparable between groups (61.0% in EVT group vs. 55.1% in the bypass group, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.42, p=0.58). The adjusted survival rates were also similar between groups for amputation and all-cause mortality. However, freedom from any re-intervention was markedly lower in the EVT than in the bypass group (48.6% vs. 84.6%, adjusted-HR, 3.56, 95% CI 1.95-6.75, p＜ 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of AFS was broadly comparable between the two strategies, although compared with bypass surgery, EVT had much higher rates for re-intervention.