S-EPMC3331632 - Endovascular revascularization of symptomatic infrapopliteal arteriosclerotic occlusive disease: comparison of atherectomy and angioplasty. - OmicsDI

Unknown

Dataset Information

Endovascular revascularization of symptomatic infrapopliteal arteriosclerotic occlusive disease: comparison of atherectomy and angioplasty.

ABSTRACT: The preferred method for revascularization of symptomatic infrapopliteal arterial occlusive disease (IPAD) has traditionally been open vascular bypass. Endovascular techniques have been increasingly applied to treat tibial disease with mixed results. We evaluated the short-term outcome of percutaneous infrapopliteal intervention and compared the different techniques used. A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing endovascular treatment for infrapopliteal arterial occlusive lesions between 2003 and 2007 in a tertiary teaching hospital was performed. Patient demographic data, indication for intervention, and periprocedural complications were recorded. Periprocedural and short-term outcomes were measured and compared. Forty-nine infrapopliteal arteries in 35 patients were treated. Twenty vessels (15 patients) underwent angioplasty and 29 vessels (20 patients) were treated with atherectomy. Demographic and angiographic characteristics were similar between the groups. Twenty-six patients had concurrent femoral and/or popliteal artery interventions. Overall, technical success was 90% and similar between angioplasty and atherectomy groups (85% versus 93%, p = NS). The vessel-specific complication rate was 10% and was similar between both groups (angioplasty 5% versus atherectomy 14%, p = NS). One dissection occurred in the angioplasty group; one perforation and three thromboembolic events occurred in the atherectomy group. Limb salvage and freedom from reintervention at 6 months were 81% and 68%, respectively, and were not significantly different between the angioplasty and atherectomy groups. Endovascular intervention for IPAD had acceptable periprocedural and short-term success rates in our high-risk patient population. Both atherectomy and angioplasty can be used successfully to treat symptomatic IPAD.

SUBMITTER: Tan TW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3331632 | biostudies-other | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

Similar Datasets

Project description:Atherosclerotic vertebrobasilar (VB) occlusive disease is a significant etiology of posterior circulation stroke, with regional hypoperfusion as an important potential contributor to stroke risk.To test the hypothesis that, among patients with symptomatic VB stenosis or occlusion, those with distal blood flow compromise as measured by large-vessel quantitative magnetic resonance angiography (QMRA) are at higher risk of subsequent posterior circulation stroke.A prospective, blinded, longitudinal cohort study was conducted at 5 academic hospital-based centers in the United States and Canada; 82 patients from inpatient and outpatient settings were enrolled. Participants with recent VB transient ischemic attack or stroke and 50% or more atherosclerotic stenosis or occlusion in vertebral and/or basilar arteries underwent large-vessel flow measurement in the VB territory using QMRA. Physicians performing follow-up assessments were blinded to QMRA flow status. Follow-up included monthly telephone calls for 12 months and biannual clinical visits (for a minimum of 12 months, and up to 24 months or the final visit). Enrollment took place from July 1, 2008, to July 31, 2013, with study completion on June 30, 2014; data analysis was performed from October 1, 2014, to April 10, 2015.Standard medical management of stroke risk factors.The primary outcome was VB-territory stroke.Of the 82 enrolled patients, 72 remained eligible after central review of their angiograms. Sixty-nine of 72 patients completed the minimum 12-month follow-up; median follow-up was 23 (interquartile range, 14-25) months. Distal flow status was low in 18 of the 72 participants (25%) included in the analysis and was significantly associated with risk for a subsequent VB stroke (P =?.04), with 12- and 24-month event-free survival rates of 78% and 70%, respectively, in the low-flow group vs 96% and 87%, respectively, in the normal-flow group. The hazard ratio, adjusted for age and stroke risk factors, in the low distal flow status group was 11.55 (95% CI, 1.88-71.00; P =?.008). Medical risk factor management at 6-month intervals was similar between patients with low and normal distal flow. Distal flow status remained significantly associated with risk even when controlling for the degree of stenosis and location.Distal flow status determined using a noninvasive and practical imaging tool is robustly associated with risk for subsequent stroke in patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic VB occlusive disease. Identification of high-risk patients has important implications for future investigation of more aggressive interventional or medical therapies.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to incorporate data from the latest clinical studies and compare the safety and efficacy of surgical left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization and endovascular LSA revascularization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).MethodsThis study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the PROSPERO database on 16 April 2023 (CRD42023414579). The Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2000 to May 2023.ResultsA total of 14 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 1,695 patients, were included for review. The peri-operative stroke rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively (P = 0.97). The peri-operative technical success rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 95.6% and 93.0%, respectively (P = 0.24). The peri-operative spinal cord ischemia rates were 1.6% (n = 18) and 1.9% (n = 7) in the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups, respectively (P = 0.90). The peri-operative type Ⅰ endoleak rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 6.6% and 23.2%, respectively (P = 0.25). The subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of peri-operative type I endoleak in the parallel stent group was significantly higher than that in the surgical LSA revascularization group (P < 0.0001). The peri-operative left upper limb ischemia rates for the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively (P = 0.96). The peri-operative mortality rates of the surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization groups were 2.0% and 2.0%, respectively (P = 0.88).ConclusionThere was no significant difference in the terms of short-term outcomes when comparing the two revascularization techniques. The quality of evidence assessed by GRADE scale was low to very-low. Surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization during TEVAR were both safe and effective. Compared with surgical LSA revascularization techniques, parallel stent revascularization of LSA significantly increased the rate of type I endoleak.

Project description:IntroductionPatients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high prevalence of peripheral artery disease. How best to manage lower extremity peripheral artery disease remains unclear in this patient population. We therefore sought to compare the outcomes after endovascular versus surgical lower extremity revascularization among patients with CKD.MethodsWe used data from Optum's de-identifed Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, a nationwide database of commercially insured persons in the United States to study patients with CKD who underwent lower extremity endovascular or surgical revascularization. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance covariates. We employed proportional hazard regression to study the primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE), defined as a repeat revascularization or amputation. We also studied each of these events separately and death from any cause.ResultsIn our cohort, 60,057 patients underwent endovascular revascularization and 9,338 patients underwent surgical revascularization. Endovascular revascularization compared with surgical revascularization was associated with a higher adjusted hazard of MALE (hazard ratio (HR) 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-1.59). Endovascular revascularization was also associated with a higher adjusted hazard of repeat revascularization (HR 1.65; 95% CI 1.57-1.72) but a lower adjusted risk of amputation (HR 0.71; CI 0.73-0.89). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization also had a lower adjusted hazard for death from any cause (0.85; CI 0.82-0.88).ConclusionsIn this analysis of patients with CKD undergoing lower extremity revascularization, an endovascular approach was associated with a higher rate of repeated revascularization but a lower risk of subsequent amputation and death compared with surgical revascularization. Multiple factors must be considered when counseling patients with CKD, who have a high burden of comorbid conditions. Clinical trials should include more patients with kidney disease, who are often otherwise excluded from participation, to better understand the most effective treatment strategies for this vulnerable patient population.

Project description:ImportanceThe Bypass Versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischemia of the Leg randomized controlled trial showed comparable outcomes between endovascular revascularization (ER) and surgical revascularization (SR) for patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). However, several observational studies showed mixed results. Most of these studies were conducted before advanced endovascular technologies were available.ObjectiveTo compare ER and SR treatment strategies for 6-month outcomes among patients with CLI.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, population-based cohort study used the Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify 66 277 patients with CLI who underwent ER or SR from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. Data analyses were conducted from January 1, 2022, to February 8, 2022. A propensity score with 1:1 matching was applied. Patients with CLI who underwent ER or SR were identified, and those with missing information on the length of stay and/or younger than 18 years were excluded.ExposuresEndovascular or surgical revascularization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a major amputation at 6 months. Significant secondary outcomes were in-hospital and 6-month mortality and an in-hospital safety composite of acute kidney injury, major bleeding, and vascular complication. Subgroup analysis was conducted for major amputation in high-volume centers.ResultsA total of 66 277 patients were identified between 2016 and 2018 who underwent ER or SR for CLI. The Nationwide Readmissions Database does not provide racial and ethnic categories. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 69.3 (12) years, and 62.5% of patients were male. A total of 54 546 patients (82.3%) underwent ER and 11 731 (17.7%) underwent SR. After propensity score matching, 11 106 matched pairs were found. Endovascular revascularization was associated with an 18% higher risk of major amputation compared with SR (997 of 10 090 [9.9%] vs 869 of 10 318 [8.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.29; P = .001). However, no difference was observed in major amputation risk when both procedures were performed in high-volume centers. Endovascular revascularization and SR had similar mortality rates (517 of 11 106 [4.7%] vs 490 of 11 106 [4.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P = .39). However, the ER group had a 17% lower risk of in-hospital safety outcomes compared with the SR group (2584 of 11 106 [23.3%] vs 2979 of 11 106 [26.8%]; odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.88; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study suggest that ER was safer, without any difference in mortality, but ER was associated with an increased risk of major amputation compared with SR. However, the risk of major amputation was similar when both procedures were performed at high-volume centers.