• Anand Dayama, Nikolaos Tsilimparis, Stephen Kolakowski, Nathaniel M Matolo, and Misty D Humphries.
• San Joaquin General Hospital, UC Davis School of Medicine, French Camp, Calif. Electronic address: dayama.md@gmail.com.
• J. Vasc. Surg. 2019 Jan 1; 69 (1): 156-163.e1.

BackgroundChronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), defined as ischemic rest pain or tissue loss secondary to arterial insufficiency, is caused by multilevel arterial disease with frequent, severe infrageniculate disease. The rise in CLTI is in part the result of increasing worldwide prevalence of diabetes, renal insufficiency, and advanced aging of the population. The aim of this study was to compare a bypass-first with an endovascular-first revascularization strategy in patients with CLTI due to infrageniculate arterial disease.MethodsWe reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted lower extremity revascularization database from 2012 to 2015 to identify patients with CLTI and isolated infrageniculate arterial disease who underwent primary infrageniculate bypass or endovascular intervention. We excluded patients with a history of ipsilateral revascularization and proximal interventions. The end points were major adverse limb event (MALE), major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), amputation at 30 days, reintervention, patency, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association of a bypass-first or an endovascular-first intervention with outcomes.ResultsThere were 1355 CLTI patients undergoing first-time revascularization to the infrageniculate arteries (821 endovascular-first revascularizations and 534 bypass-first revascularizations) identified. There was no significant difference in adjusted rate of 30-day MALE in the bypass-first vs endovascular-first revascularization cohort (9% vs 11.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-1.08). However, the incidence of transtibial or proximal amputation was lower in the bypass-first cohort (4.3% vs 7.4%; OR, 0.60; CI, 0.36-0.98). Patients with bypass-first revascularization had higher wound complication rates (9.7% vs 3.7%; OR, 2.75; CI, 1.71-4.42) compared with patients in the endovascular-first cohort. Compared with the endovascular-first cohort, the incidence of 30-day MACE was significantly higher in bypass-first patients (6.9% vs 2.6%; adjusted OR, 3.88; CI, 2.18-6.88), and 30-day mortality rates were 3.23% vs 1.8% (adjusted OR, 2.77; CI, 1.26-6.11). There was no difference in 30-day untreated loss of patency, reintervention of treated arterial segment, readmissions, and reoperations between the two cohorts. In subgroup analysis after exclusion of dialysis patients, there was also no significant difference in MALE or amputation between the bypass-first and endovascular-first cohorts.ConclusionsCLTI patients with isolated infrageniculate arterial disease treated by a bypass-first approach have a significantly lower 30-day amputation. However, this benefit was not observed when dialysis patients were excluded. The bypass-first cohort had a higher incidence of MACE compared with an endovascular-first strategy. These results reaffirm the need for randomized controlled trials, such as the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL-2) trial and Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI), to provide level 1 evidence for the role of endovascular-first vs bypass-first revascularization strategies in the treatment of this population of challenging patients.Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

37 keywords...

hide…