High-intensity statin therapy reduces risk of amputation and reintervention among patients undergoing lower extremity bypass for chronic limb-threatening ischemia

The real-world data of lipid-lowering treatment in patients with peripheral artery disease and its association with severity of disease

BACKGROUND

The risk of coronary artery disease in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is high, life prognosis is poor, and lipid-lowering treatment with statins has been reported to improve prognosis. In clinical practice, however, hypolipidemia is more common in patients with severe PAD and statin prescription rates appear to be low, but specific data are scarce in Japan. Therefore, we conducted this cross-sectional study in collaboration with other centers of vascular surgery to determine the rate of statin prescriptions for PAD patients in real-world practice, the rate of achievement of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol control targets, and whether statin non-use is a determinant factor of critical limb ischemia (CLI).

METHODS

A total of 246 PAD patients (97 with CLI) from 5 sites were included in this study. Medical history and blood test data were obtained from medical records and interviews with patients, and were compared between CLI and non-CLI patients.

RESULTS

Statin prescription rate was only 34 %. The overall LDL cholesterol control target rate was 46 % of CLI cases and 51 % of non-CLI cases, according to the lipid management criteria of the Japanese Society for Atherosclerosis 2022 guidelines. Patients in the CLI group had a lower mean body mass index and lower LDL cholesterol levels than those in the non-CLI group, suggesting that these factors were responsible for the lower statin prescription rate. However, multivariate analysis revealed that statin non-use was one of the determinants of CLI.

CONCLUSIONS

Statin prescription rates for PAD patients were low in real-world practice settings in the field of vascular surgery. Since statin non-use is a determinant of CLI, there is a need to educate physicians engaged in treatment regarding lipid-lowering treatment with statins.

Artificial Intelligence of Arterial Doppler Waveforms to Predict Major Adverse Outcomes Among Patients Evaluated for Peripheral Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with peripheral artery disease are at increased risk for major adverse cardiac events, major adverse limb events, and all-cause death. Developing tools capable of identifying those patients with peripheral artery disease at greatest risk for major adverse events is the first step for outcome prevention. This study aimed to determine whether computer-assisted analysis of a resting Doppler waveform using deep neural networks can accurately identify patients with peripheral artery disease at greatest risk for adverse outcome events.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients (April 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020) undergoing ankle-brachial index testing were included. Patients were randomly allocated to training, validation, and testing subsets (60%/20%/20%). Deep neural networks were trained on resting posterior tibial arterial Doppler waveforms to predict major adverse cardiac events, major adverse limb events, and all-cause death at 5 years. Patients were then analyzed in groups based on the quartiles of each prediction score in the training set. Among 11 384 total patients, 10 437 patients met study inclusion criteria (mean age, 65.8±14.8 years; 40.6% women). The test subset included 2084 patients. During 5 years of follow-up, there were 447 deaths, 585 major adverse cardiac events, and 161 MALE events. After adjusting for age, sex, and Charlson comorbidity index, deep neural network analysis of the posterior tibial artery waveform provided independent prediction of death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.44 [95% CI, 1.78-3.34]), major adverse cardiac events (HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.49-2.61]), and major adverse limb events (HR, 11.03 [95% CI, 5.43-22.39]) at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

An artificial intelligence-enabled analysis of Doppler arterial waveforms enables identification of major adverse outcomes among patients with peripheral artery disease, which may promote early adoption and adherence of risk factor modification.

Investigation of center-specific saphenous vein utilization rates in femoral popliteal artery bypass and associated impact of conduit on outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to investigate variation in great saphenous vein (GSV) use among the various centers participating in the Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal bypass modules. Further, differences in outcomes in femoral-popliteal artery bypass with single segment GSV conduit vs prosthetic conduit will be documented. Center GSV use rate impact on outcomes will be investigated.

METHODS

Primary exclusions were patients undergoing redo bypass, urgent or emergent bypass, and those in whom prosthetic graft was used while having undergone prior coronary artery bypass grafting. The distribution of GSV use across the 260 centers participating in Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal bypass module was placed into histogram and variance in mean GSV use evaluated with analysis of variance analysis. Centers that used GSV in >50% of bypasses were categorized as high use centers and centers that used the GSV in <30% of cases were categorized as low use centers. Baseline differences in patient characteristics and comorbidities in those undergoing bypass with GSV vs prosthetic conduit were analyzed with χ2 testing and the Student t test, as were those undergoing treatment in high vs low use centers. Multivariable time-dependent Cox regression analyses were then performed for the primary outcomes of major amputation ipsilateral to the operative side and mortality in long-term follow-up. High vs low use center was a dichotomous variable in these regressions. Secondary outcomes of freedom from graft infection and freedom from loss of primary patency were performed with Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Among centers with >50 patients meeting inclusion criteria for this study, GSV use ranged from 15% to 93% (analysis of variance P < .001). When considering all centers irrespective of number of patients, the range was 0% to 100%. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, GSV conduit use was associated with improved freedom from loss of primary or primary assisted patency, improved freedom from major amputation after index hospitalization, improved freedom from graft infection after the index hospitalization, and improved freedom from mortality in long-term follow-up (log-rank P < .001 for all four outcomes). Both low use center (hazard ratio, 1.35; P < .001) and prosthetic graft use (hazard ratio, 1.24; P < .001) achieved multivariable significance as risks for mortality in long-term follow-up. Other variables with a multivariable mortality association are presented in the manuscript. Low use center and prosthetic bypass were significant univariable but not multivariable risks for major amputation after index hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

There is remarkably wide variation in GSV use for femoral popliteal artery bypass among various medical centers. GSV use is associated with enhanced long-term survival as well as freedom from loss of bypass patency and graft infection. The data herein indicate institutional patterns of prosthetic conduit choice, which has the potential to be altered to enhance outcomes.