Dataset Information

Hospital Readmissions Following Endovascular Therapy for Critical Limb Ischemia: Associations With Wound Healing, Major Adverse Limb Events, and Mortality.

ABSTRACT: The significance of hospital readmission after endovascular therapy for critical limb ischemia (CLI) is not well established. We sought to investigate the incidence, timing, and causes of readmissions after endovascular therapy for CLI and whether readmission is associated with major adverse limb events (MALE) or mortality.This was a retrospective study of 252 patients treated with endovascular therapy for CLI. During median follow-up of 381 days (interquartile range [IQR], 115-718), 140 (56%) were readmitted, with median time to readmission of 83 days (IQR, 33-190). Readmission within 30 days occurred in 14% of patients (n=35; 25% of readmissions). Most readmissions occurred between 30 and 180 days (n=67; 48% of readmissions). The most frequent reason for readmission was unhealed wounds (n=63; 45% of readmissions). Independent predictors of readmission by Cox proportional hazards analysis were unhealed wounds, presence of multiple wounds, age ≥70, female sex, hemodialysis, and history of heart failure (P<0.05 for each). By Kaplan-Meier analysis, readmission was greatest in patients with unhealed wounds, followed by patients who never had a wound, and lowest in patients whose wounds completely healed (P<0.0001 overall, and P<0.01 between groups). After multivariable adjustment, readmission remained an independent predictor of composite MALE (major amputation, bypass, or endarterectomy) or mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.5-6.5; P=0.002).Most readmissions occur 30 and 180 days after endovascular therapy for nonprocedural reasons. Unhealed wounds are an independent risk factor for readmission. Readmission is associated with increased MALE and mortality after endovascular therapy for CLI.

SUBMITTER: Reed GW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4889187 | biostudies-other | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Lower extremity bypass (LEB) has traditionally been the "gold standard" in the treatment of critical limb ischemia (CLI). Infrainguinal endovascular intervention (IEI) has become more commonly performed than LEB, but comparative outcomes are limited. We sought to compare rates of major adverse limb events (MALEs) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) after LEB and IEI in a propensity score-matched, national cohort of patients with CLI. METHODS:The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) vascular targeted files (2011-2014) for LEB and IEI were merged. CLI patients were identified by ischemic rest pain or tissue loss. Patients were matched on a 1:1 basis for propensity to undergo LEB or IEI. Primary outcomes were 30-day MALEs and MACEs. Within the propensity-matched cohort, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of MALEs and MACEs. RESULTS:A total of 13,294 LEBs and IEIs were identified, with 8066 cases performed for CLI. Propensity matching identified 3848 cases (1924 per group). There were no differences in preoperative variables between the propensity-matched LEB and IEI groups (all P > .05). At 30 days, rates of MALEs were significantly lower in the LEB group (9.2% LEB vs IEI 12.2%; P = .003). On multivariate logistic regression, bypass with single-segment saphenous vein vs IEI (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.92; P = .01), bypass with alternative conduit (prosthetic, spliced vein, or composite) vs IEI (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98; P = .04), antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.58-1.00; P = .049), and statin therapy (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99; P = .04) were protective against MALEs, whereas infrageniculate intervention (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.09-1.72; P = .01) and a history of prior bypass of the same arterial segment (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.41-2.41; P <. 0001) were predictive. Rates of 30-day MACEs were not significantly different (4.9% LEB vs 3.7% IEI; P = .07) between the groups. Independent predictors of MACEs included age (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; P = .01), steroid use (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.08-2.99; P = .03), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96; P = .02), beta blocker use (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.09-1.43; P = .01), dialysis (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.55-3.45; P < .0001), totally dependent functional status (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.25-7.58; P = .02), and suboptimal conduit for LEB compared with IEI (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.36; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:Within this large, propensity-matched, national cohort, LEB predicted lower risk-adjusted 30-day MALE rate compared with IEI. Furthermore, there was no difference in 30-day MACE rate between the groups despite higher inherent risk with open surgical procedures. Therefore, this study supports the effectiveness and primacy of LEB for revascularization in CLI.

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to analyze periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of peripheral endovascular intervention (PVI) for critical limb ischemia (CLI).MethodsWe reviewed 1244 patients undergoing 1414 PVIs for CLI (rest pain, 29%; tissue loss, 71%) within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) from January 2010 to December 2011. Overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), and freedom from major amputation at 1 year were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe number of arteries treated during each procedure were 1 (49%), 2 (35%), 3 (12%), and ≥4 (5%). Target arterial segments and TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus classifications were aortoiliac, 27% (A, 48%; B, 28%; C, 12%; and D, 12%); femoral-popliteal, 48% (A, 29%; B, 34%; C, 20%; and D, 17%); and infrapopliteal, 25% (A, 17%; B, 14%; C, 25%; D, 44%). Technical success was 92%. Complications included access site hematoma (5.0%), occlusion (0.3%), and distal embolization (2.4%). Mortality and major amputation rates were 2.8% and 2.2% at 30 days, respectively. Overall percutaneous or open reintervention rate was 8.0% during the first year. At 1-year, OS, AFS, and freedom from major amputation were 87%, 87%, and 94% for patients with rest pain and 80%, 71%, and 81% for patients with tissue loss. Independent predictors of reduced 1-year OS (C index = .74) included dialysis (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.8-5.1; P < .01), emergency procedure (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.0-6.2; P = .05), age >80 years (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.7-2.8; P < .01), not living at home preoperatively (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .01), creatinine >1.8 mg/dL (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.8; P < .01), congestive heart failure (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2; P < .01), and chronic β-blocker use (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; P = .03), whereas independent preoperative ambulation (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9; P = .014) was protective. Independent predictors of major amputation (C index = .69) at 1 year included dialysis (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.5; P < .01), tissue loss (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P = .02), prior major contralateral amputation (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5; P = .02), non-Caucasian race (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9; P = .045), and male gender (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6; P = .03), whereas smoking (HR, .60; 95% CI, 0.4-1.0; P = .042) was protective.ConclusionsSurvival and major amputation after PVI for CLI are associated with different patient characteristics. Dialysis dependence is a common predictor that portends especially poor outcomes. These data may facilitate efforts to improve patient selection and, after further validation, enable risk-adjusted outcome reporting for CLI patients undergoing PVI.

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.

Project description:BackgroundCritical limb ischemia remains a difficult disease to treat, with limited level one data. The BEST-CLI trial (Best Endovascular vs Best Open Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia) is attempting to answer whether initial treatment with open surgical bypass or endovascular therapy improves outcomes, although it remains in enrollment. This study aims to compare amputation-free survival and reintervention rates in patients treated with initial open surgical bypass or endovascular intervention for ischemic ulcers of the lower extremities.Methods and resultsUsing California nonfederal hospital data linked to statewide death data, all patients with lower extremity ulcers and a diagnosis of peripheral artery disease who underwent a revascularization procedure from 2005 to 2013 were identified. Propensity scores were formulated from baseline patient characteristics. Inverse probability weighting was used with Kaplan-Meier analysis to determine amputation-free survival and time to reintervention for open versus endovascular treatment. Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to adjust for patient ability to manage their disease and hospital revascularization volume. A total of 16 800 patients were identified. Open surgical bypass was the initial treatment in 5970 (36%) while 10 830 (64%) underwent endovascular interventions. Patients in the endovascular group were slightly younger compared with the open group (70 versus 71 years, ±12 years; P<0.001). Endovascular-first patients were more likely to have comorbid renal failure (36% versus 24%), coronary artery disease (34% versus 32%), congestive heart failure (19% versus 15%), and diabetes mellitus (65% versus 58%; all P values <0.05). After inverse propensity weighting as well as adjustment for patient ability to manage their disease and hospital revascularization experience, open surgery first was associated with a worse amputation-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) with no difference in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11). Endovascular first was associated with higher rates of reintervention (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.23).ConclusionsPatients with critical limb ischemia have multiple comorbidities, and initial surgical bypass is associated with poorer amputation-free survival compared with an endovascular-first approach, perhaps due to increased severity of wounds at the time of presentation.

Project description:ObjectivesPeripheral artery disease is estimated to affect 237 million individuals worldwide. Critical limb ischaemia, also known as chronic limb threatening ischaemia is a consequence of the progression of peripheral artery disease which occurs in ∼21% of patients over a five-year period. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the use of additional below-the-ankle angioplasty in comparison to the use of above-the-ankle angioplasty alone, and the subsequent rates of amputation, wound healing, restenosis, rest pain, reintervention and complications.MethodsThis systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines following a registered protocol (CRD42019154893). Online databases were searched using a search strategy of 20 keywords. Included articles reported the outcome for inframalleolar (pedal artery, pedal arch, plantar arteries) angioplasty with additional proximal angioplasty in comparison to proximal angioplasty alone. GRADE assessment was applied to assess the quality of the evidence.ResultsAfter screening 1089 articles, 10 articles met the inclusion criteria. Comparative performance assessment of below-the-ankle with above-the-ankle versus above-the-ankle angioplasty alone was undertaken in 3 articles, with the remaining 7 articles reporting outcomes of below-the-ankle with above-the-ankle angioplasty with no distinct comparator group. Significant decrease in major lower limb amputation at the last follow-up in the below-the-ankle group when compared with the above-the-ankle angioplasty alone group was observed in a single study (3.45% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.05). Improved wound healing rate at follow-up in the below-the-ankle group versus above-the-ankle angioplasty alone group was also reported in a single study (59.3% vs. 38.1%, p < 0.05). Subsequent rate of amputation after below-the-ankle angioplasty has been estimated as 23.5%.ConclusionTo date, there is a lack of studies assessing inframalleolar interventions and their use in improving limb salvage, wound healing and symptomatology. Prospective RCTs should be undertaken with adequate participant numbers to be sufficiently powered and report clinically important end-points.

Dataset Information

Hospital Readmissions Following Endovascular Therapy for Critical Limb Ischemia: Associations With Wound Healing, Major Adverse Limb Events, and Mortality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets