Outcomes of atherectomy for lower extremity ischemia in an office endovascular center

Outcomes of atherectomy in patients undergoing lower extremity revascularisation

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of real-world data on the in-hospital (IH) and post-discharge outcomes in patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) with adjunctive atherectomy.

AIMS

In this retrospective, registry-based study, we evaluated IH and post-discharge outcomes among patients undergoing PVI, treated with or without atherectomy, in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PVI Registry.

METHODS

The IH composite endpoint included procedural complications, bleeding or thrombosis. The primary out-of-hospital endpoint was major amputation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included repeat endovascular or surgical revascularisation and death. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of atherectomy use and its association with clinical endpoints.

RESULTS

A total of 30,847 patients underwent PVI from 2014 to 2019, including 10,971 (35.6%) treated with atherectomy. The unadjusted rate of the IH endpoint occurred in 524 (4.8%) of the procedures involving atherectomy and 1,041 (5.3%) of non-atherectomy procedures (p=0.07). After adjustment, the use of atherectomy was not associated with an increased risk of the combined IH endpoint (p=0.68). In the 6,889 (22.4%) patients with out-of-hospital data, atherectomy was associated with a reduced risk of amputation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.85; p<0.01) and surgical revascularisation (aHR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44-0.89; p=0.017), no difference in death rates (p=0.10), but an increased risk of endovascular revascularisation (aHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06-1.39; p<0.01) at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of atherectomy during PVI is common and is not associated with an increase in IH adverse events. Longitudinally, patients treated with atherectomy undergo repeat endovascular reintervention more frequently but experience a reduced risk of amputation and surgical revascularisation.

Indications for a "Surgery-First" Approach for the Treatment of Lower Extremity Arterial Disease

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been a tendency toward an "endovascular-first" approach for the treatment for femoropopliteal arterial disease. The purpose of this study is to determine if there are patients that are better served with an initial femoropopliteal bypass (FPB) rather than an endovascular attempt at revascularization.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing FPB between June 2006 - December 2014 was performed. Our primary endpoint was primary graft patency, defined as patent using ultrasound or angiography without secondary intervention. Patients with <1-year follow-up were excluded. Univariate analysis of factors significant for 5-year patency was performed using χ2 tests for binary variables. A binary logistic regression analysis incorporating all factors identified as significant by univariate analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for 5-year patency. Event-free graft survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier models.

RESULTS

We identified 241 patients undergoing FPB on 272 limbs. FPB indication was disabling claudication in 95 limbs, chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in 148, and popliteal aneurysm in 29. In total, 134 FPB were saphenous vein grafts (SVG), 126 were prosthetic grafts, 8 were arm vein grafts, and 4 were cadaveric/xenografts. There were 97 bypasses with primary patency at 5 or more years of follow-up. Grafts patent at 5 years by Kaplan-Meier analysis were more likely to have been performed for claudication or popliteal aneurysm (63% 5-year patency) as compared with CLTI (38%, P < 0.001). Statistically significant predictors (using log rank test) of patency over time were use of SVG (P = 0.015), surgical indication of claudication or popliteal aneurysm (P < 0.001), Caucasian race (P = 0.019) and no history of COPD (P = 0.026). Multivariable regression analysis confirmed these 4 factors as significant independent predictors of 5-year patency. Of note, there was no statistical correlation between FPB configuration (above or below knee anastomosis, in-situ versus reversed saphenous vein) and 5-year patency. There were 40 FPBs in Caucasian patients without a history of COPD receiving SVG for claudication or popliteal aneurysm that had a 92% estimated 5-year patency by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term primary patency that was substantial enough to consider open surgery as a first intervention was demonstrated in Caucasian patients without COPD, having good quality saphenous vein, and who underwent FPB for claudication or popliteal artery aneurysm.

Endovascular experience at an academic office-based procedure center

OBJECTIVE

The number of office-based procedure centers with the capability of performing a wide range of endovascular procedures has substantially increased over the past decade. This shift in practice settings has occurred faster in the private sector as compared to the academic environment. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of endovascular procedures performed at a dedicated academic outpatient procedural center.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data of 400 patients who underwent 499 endovascular procedures in a university-based, academic outpatient procedure center between November 2013 and December 2016. Outcomes analyzed included procedure-related complications, limb loss, mortality, and emergency department visits or hospital admissions that occurred within 30 days following the procedure.

RESULTS

The 400 patients had a mean age of 65 ± 13 years with slightly more females (51%; n = 203) as compared to males (49%; n = 197). Most patients (71%; 284) were Caucasian while 80 (20%) were African-Americans. Associated comorbidities included hypertension (86%), diabetes mellitus (51%), chronic kidney disease (42%), and obesity (mean body mass index of 29 ± 6). Based on anesthetic risk, most were ASA class 3 (81%), while ASA 1 and 2 comprised 17% and ASA 4 only 2%. Medicare beneficiaries accounted for 254 (64%) of our patients. Pre-operative studies included mainly duplex ultrasound (62%) and other noninvasive arterial studies (57%).The mean procedural time was 58 min (range, 7 to 200) with an overall technical success rate of 97%. There were no deaths. Complications developed in 10 patients following the 483 procedures (2.1%) being hospitalized with four of them transferred directly to the emergency room. The reasons for these hospitalizations included acute limb ischemia, arterial pseudoaneurysm, deep vein thrombosis, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, and lower extremity pain not vascular in origin. Financial reimbursement at the office-based center was higher than that seen with hospital-based procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular procedures performed in an academic office-based procedure center are safe and associated with good clinical outcomes. A small minority of patients have subsequent ER visits or hospital admissions. Academic institutions should consider adding an office-based procedure center based on today's competitive healthcare market.