1
|
Menard MT, Farber A, Doros G, McGinigle KL, Chisci E, Clavijo LC, Kayssi A, Schneider PA, Hawkins BM, Dake MD, Hamza T, Strong MB, Rosenfield K, Conte MS. The impact of revascularization strategy on clinical failure, hemodynamic failure, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia symptoms in the BEST-CLI Trial. J Vasc Surg 2024:S0741-5214(24)01656-2. [PMID: 39069016 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.07.085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2024] [Revised: 07/11/2024] [Accepted: 07/21/2024] [Indexed: 07/30/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Sustained clinical and hemodynamic benefit after revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is needed to resolve symptoms and prevent limb loss. We sought to compare rates of clinical and hemodynamic failure as well as resolution of initial and prevention of recurrent CLTI after endovascular (ENDO) vs bypass (OPEN) revascularization in the Best-Endovascular-versus-best-Surgical-Therapy-in-patients-with-CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS As planned secondary analyses of the BEST-CLI trial, we examined the rates of (1) clinical failure (a composite of all-cause death, above-ankle amputation, major reintervention, and degradation of WIfI stage); (2) hemodynamic failure (a composite of above-ankle amputation, major and minor reintervention to maintain index limb patency, failure to an initial increase or a subsequent decrease in ankle brachial index of 0.15 or toe brachial index of 0.10, and radiographic evidence of treatment stenosis or occlusion); (3) time to resolution of presenting CLTI symptoms; and (4) incidence of recurrent CLTI. Time-to-event analyses were performed by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1: suitable single segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], N = 1434; cohort 2: lacking suitable SSGSV, N = 396), and multivariate stratified Cox regression models were created. RESULTS In cohort 1, there was a significant difference in time to clinical failure (log-rank P < .001), hemodynamic failure (log-rank P < .001), and resolution of presenting symptoms (log-rank P = .009) in favor of OPEN. In cohort 2, there was a significantly lower rate of hemodynamic failure (log-rank P = .006) favoring OPEN, and no significant difference in time to clinical failure or resolution of presenting symptoms. Multivariate analysis revealed that assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly lower risk of clinical and hemodynamic failure in both cohorts and a significantly higher likelihood of resolving initial and preventing recurrent CLTI symptoms in cohort 1, including after adjustment for key baseline patient covariates (end-stage renal disease [ESRD], prior revascularization, smoking, diabetes, age >80 years, WIfI stage, tissue loss, and infrapopliteal disease). Factors independently associated with clinical failure included age >80 years in cohort 1 and ESRD across both cohorts. ESRD was associated with hemodynamic failure in cohort 1. Factors associated with slower resolution of presenting symptoms included diabetes in cohort 1 and WIfI stage in cohort 2. CONCLUSIONS Durable clinical and hemodynamic benefit after revascularization for CLTI is important to avoid persistent and recurrent CLTI, reinterventions, and limb loss. When compared with ENDO, initial treatment with OPEN surgical bypass, particularly with available saphenous vein, is associated with improved clinical and hemodynamic outcomes and enhanced resolution of CLTI symptoms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew T Menard
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
| | - Alik Farber
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA
| | | | - Katherine L McGinigle
- Division of Vascular Surgery, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Emiliano Chisci
- Department of Surgery, Vascular Surgery Division, San Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | | | - Ahmed Kayssi
- Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Peter A Schneider
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Beau M Hawkins
- Cardiovascular Section, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK
| | - Michael D Dake
- Department of Medical Imaging, University of Arizona Health Sciences, Tucson, AZ
| | | | - Michael B Strong
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Kenneth Rosenfield
- Section of Vascular Medicine and Intervention Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Michael S Conte
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Spinella G, Pisa FR, Boschetti GA, Finotello A, Pane B, Pratesi G, Lanzarone E. Reconsidering the Impact of Endovascular Repair on Short-Term and Mid-Term Outcomes in Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Retrospective Analysis. Ann Vasc Surg 2024; 103:141-150. [PMID: 38395344 DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.12.068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2023] [Revised: 11/25/2023] [Accepted: 12/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of the study is to compare the short-term and medium-term outcomes in patients who underwent open repair (OR) or endovascular repair (ER) for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) also including stratifications based on severity and year of the first intervention. METHODS We conducted an observational retrospective single-center cohort study. We evaluated patients with PAD that primarily underwent ER, OR, minor, and major amputations in a single center from 2005 to 2020. The patients were then subdivided according to the type of intervention (OR versus ER), and stratified according to the International Classification of Diseases 9 code reported in the operating documents and to the year intervention. Mortality, minor, and major amputation rates occurring at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years after the first intervention were evaluated as primary outcomes and compared between patient groups in both stratifications. Moreover, Kaplan-Maier curves were analyzed for these outcomes. RESULTS One thousand four hundred ninety two patients (67.0% males) with PAD were evaluated. Their clinical presentations were intermittent claudication in 51.4% of cases, rest pain in 16.8%, ulcers in 10.3%, and gangrene in 21.5%. Nine hundred ninety seven (66.8%) underwent OR and 495 (33.2%) ER as first intervention for PAD. No statistical differences were observed in terms of mortality in the 2 groups (OR versus ER, P = 1,000, P = 0.357, and P = 0.688 at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively). The rate of minor amputations was significantly higher (P < 0.012, P < 0.002, and P < 0.007 at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively) for ER group in any of the observed follow-up periods. Also, we have observed that OR and ER do not have any significant short-term and medium-term major amputation rate differences. CONCLUSIONS In our experience, the impact of ER does not significantly change short-term and mid-term major outcomes in patients with PAD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Spinella
- Department of Surgical and Integrated Diagnostic Sciences (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Clinic, Genoa, Italy.
| | - Fabio Riccardo Pisa
- Department of Surgical and Integrated Diagnostic Sciences (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Gian Antonio Boschetti
- Vascular Surgery Unit, AULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Treviso Regional Hospital, Treviso, Italy
| | | | - Bianca Pane
- Department of Surgical and Integrated Diagnostic Sciences (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Clinic, Genoa, Italy
| | - Giovanni Pratesi
- Department of Surgical and Integrated Diagnostic Sciences (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Clinic, Genoa, Italy
| | - Ettore Lanzarone
- Department of Management, Information and Production Engineering, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Conte MS, Azene E, Doros G, Gasper WJ, Hamza T, Kashyap VS, Guzman R, Mena-Hurtado C, Menard MT, Rosenfield K, Rowe VL, Strong M, Farber A. Secondary interventions following open vs endovascular revascularization for chronic limb threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial. J Vasc Surg 2024; 79:1428-1437.e4. [PMID: 38368997 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.02.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2023] [Revised: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 02/11/2024] [Indexed: 02/20/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Patients undergoing revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia experience a high burden of target limb reinterventions. We analyzed data from the Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) randomized trial comparing initial open bypass (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) treatment strategies, with a focus on reintervention-related study endpoints. METHODS In a planned secondary analysis, we examined the rates of major reintervention, any reintervention, and the composite of any reintervention, amputation, or death by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1 with suitable single-segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], n = 1434; cohort 2 lacking suitable SSGSV, n = 396). We also compared the cumulative number of major and all index limb reinterventions over time. Comparisons between treatment arms within each cohort were made using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS In cohort 1, assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of a major limb reintervention (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.49; P < .001), any reintervention (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .001), or any reintervention, amputation, or death (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78; P < .001). Findings were similar in cohort 2 for major reintervention (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84; P = .007) or any reintervention (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98; P = .04). In both cohorts, early (30-day) limb reinterventions were notably higher for patients assigned to ENDO as compared with OPEN (14.7% vs 4.5% of cohort 1 subjects; 16.6% vs 5.6% of cohort 2 subjects). The mean number of major (mean events per subject ratio [MR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.58; P < .001) or any target limb reinterventions (MR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .001) per year was significantly less in the OPEN arm of cohort 1. The mean number of reinterventions per limb salvaged per year was lower in the OPEN arm of cohort 1 (MR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57; P < .001 and MR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79; P < .001 for major and all, respectively). The majority of index limb reinterventions occurred during the first year following randomization, but events continued to accumulate over the duration of follow-up in the trial. CONCLUSIONS Reintervention is common following revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Among patients deemed suitable for either approach, initial treatment with open bypass, particularly in patients with available SSGSV conduit, is associated with a significantly lower number of major and minor target limb reinterventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael S Conte
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
| | - Ezana Azene
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Gundersen Health System, La Crosse, WI
| | | | - Warren J Gasper
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | | | - Vikram S Kashyap
- Frederik Meijer Heart and Vascular Institute, Corewell Health, Grand Rapids, MI
| | - Randy Guzman
- Section of Vascular Surgery, Hospital St. Boniface, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | | | - Matthew T Menard
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Kenneth Rosenfield
- Section of Vascular Medicine and Intervention, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Vincent L Rowe
- Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Michael Strong
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Alik Farber
- Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|