Martínez-Rico C, Martí-Mestre X, Cervellera-Pérez D, Ramos-Izquierdo R, Eiberg J, Vila-Coll R. Routinely ultrasound surveillance improves outcome after endovascular treatment of peripheral arterial disease: propensity-matched comparisons of clinical outcomes after ultrasound or clinical-hemodynamic based surveillance programs.
INT ANGIOL 2022;
41:500-508. [PMID:
35766298 DOI:
10.23736/s0392-9590.22.04900-8]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Endovascular treatment (EVT) has replaced open repair as the first option in intermittent claudication (IC) and chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in several centers. However, evidence of the most optimal post-procedural surveillance strategy is sparse. This study aimed to compare two routine surveillance programs after EVT of IC/CLTI: clinical and hemodynamic assessment (CHA) vs. duplex ultrasound (DUS) and clinical/hemodynamic assessment in combination.
METHODS
Between February 2012 and December 2015, all patients with EVT of IC/CLTI were allocated to either CHA or DUS-based routine surveillance programs. The allocation-ratio was 1:2 (CHA:DUS), and propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control baseline differences between the groups. Follow-up visits in the CHA group consisted of clinical assessment and ABI at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Follow-up visits in DUS group consisted of clinical assessment, ABI, and target vessel DUS at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.
RESULTS
In total, 340 legs in 305 patients suffering from IC/CLTI were included; 111 (33%) in the CHA-group and 229 (67%) in the DUS group. The two groups were identical except for a significantly lower incidence of diabetes mellitus in the CHA group than the DUS group, 55% vs. 72%, respectively (P=006). Based on PSM, the CHA-group vs. the DUS-group was burdened of an increased risk of amputation (12.5% vs. 8.27%, HR=0.41 [95% CI: 0.17-0.96]), and a higher mortality (21.2% vs. 12.8%, HR=0.37 [95% CI: 0.19-0.72]). The reported differences in reintervention rate (7.5% vs. 12.8%, HR=1.12 [95% CI: 0.44-2.84]) were insignificant. The mean follow-up was 317 days (SD=0.214) in the CHA group and 611 days (SD=0.298) in the DUS group.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that DUS-based routine surveillance after EVT of IC/CLTI is superior to CHA-based routine surveillance in improved amputation rate and mortality.
Collapse