Temporal trends and outcomes of critical limb ischemia among patients with chronic kidney disease

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Deep Venous Arterialization: Background, Patient Selection, Technique, Outcomes and Follow-up, and Future Implementation

Critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a severe manifestation of peripheral arterial disease with a highly increased risk for morbidity and mortality that has limited and suboptimal opportunities for treatment, ultimately resulting in major amputation for patients. Deep venous arterialization (DVA) provides a suitable limb salvage option for "no-option" patients facing amputation by introducing an artificial anastomosis between a site of proximal arterial inflow and retrograde venous outflow to deliver tissue perfusion to lower extremity wounds. Because DVAs are employed as a last-resort effort in CLTI patients, it is important to provide updated information on indications for usage, strategies in creating DVA conduits, and discussion of outcomes and expectations for patients undergoing this procedure. Additionally, variations in method, including use of various techniques and devices, are explored. The authors provide an up-to-date review of the literature and discuss pertinent procedural and technical considerations for utilizing DVAs in CLTI patients.

Impact of Hospital Procedural Volume on Outcomes After Endovascular Revascularization for Critical Limb Ischemia

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the interaction between hospital endovascular lower extremity revascularization (eLER) volume and outcomes after eLER for critical limb ischemia (CLI).

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on the relationship between hospital procedural volume and outcomes of eLER for CLI.

METHODS

The authors queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (2013-2015) for hospitalized patients who underwent eLER for CLI. Hospitals were divided into tertiles according to annual eLER volume: low volume (<100 eLER procedures), moderate volume (100-550 eLER procedures), and high volume (>550 eLER procedures). Stepwise multivariable regression models were used. The main outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission with major adverse limb events, defined as the composite of amputation, acute limb ischemia, or repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

Among 145,785 hospitalizations for eLER for CLI, 5,199 (3.6%) were at low-volume eLER hospitals, 27,857 (19.1%) at moderate-volume eLER hospitals, and 112,728 (77.3%) at high-volume eLER hospitals. On multivariable analysis, there was no difference with regard to in-hospital mortality among moderate-volume hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.60-1.01) and high-volume hospitals (adjusted OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.64-1.05) compared with low-volume hospitals. There was lower risk of in-hospital major amputation (adjusted OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.96) and minor amputation at high- versus low-volume hospitals. The length of hospital stay was shorter and discharges to nursing facilities were fewer among moderate- and high-volume hospitals compared with low-volume hospitals. Compared with low-volume hospitals, eLER for CLI at high-volume hospitals had a lower risk for 30-day readmission with major adverse limb events (adjusted OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.70-0.99), while there was no difference among moderate-volume hospitals (adjusted OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.77-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide observational analysis suggests that annual eLER volume does not influence in-hospital mortality after eLER for CLI. However, high eLER volume (>550 eLER procedures) was associated with better rates of limb preservation after eLER for CLI.