Dataset Information

Outcomes of Peripheral Vascular Interventions in Select Patients With Lower Extremity Acute Limb Ischemia.

ABSTRACT: Contemporary data on patients presenting with acute limb ischemia (ALI), who are selected for treatment with endovascular peripheral vascular interventions (PVI), are limited. Our study examined outcomes following endovascular PVI in patients with ALI by comparing with patients treated for chronic critical limb ischemia using a regional quality improvement registry.Of the 11 035 patients in the Vascular Study Group of New England PVI database (2010-2014), we identified 365 patients treated for lower extremity ALI who were 5:1 frequency matched (by procedure year and arterial segments treated) to 1808 patients treated for critical limb ischemia. ALI patients treated with PVI had high burden of atherosclerotic risk factors and were more likely to have had prior ipsilateral revascularizations. ALI patients were less likely to be treated with self-expanding stents and more likely to undergo thrombolysis than patients with critical limb ischemia. In multivariable analysis, ALI was associated with higher technical failure (odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.5%), increased rate of distal embolization (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval, 1.5%-4.9%), longer length of stay (means ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.4%-1.8%), and higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 2.8, 95% confidence interval, 1.3%-5.9%). ALI was not associated with risk of major amputation or mortality at 1 year.In a multicenter cohort of patients treated with PVI, we found that ALI patients selected for treatment with endovascular techniques experienced greater short-term adverse events but similar long-term outcomes as their critical limb ischemia counterparts. Further studies are needed to refine the selection of ALI patients who are best served by PVI.

SUBMITTER: Inagaki E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6015405 | biostudies-other | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes of Peripheral Vascular Interventions in Select Patients With Lower Extremity Acute Limb Ischemia.

Inagaki Elica E Farber Alik A Kalish Jeffrey A JA Eslami Mohammad H MH Siracuse Jeffrey J JJ Eberhardt Robert T RT Rybin Denis V DV Doros Gheorghe G Hamburg Naomi M NM

Journal of the American Heart Association 20180412 8

<h4>Background</h4>Contemporary data on patients presenting with acute limb ischemia (ALI), who are selected for treatment with endovascular peripheral vascular interventions (PVI), are limited. Our study examined outcomes following endovascular PVI in patients with ALI by comparing with patients treated for chronic critical limb ischemia using a regional quality improvement registry.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Of the 11 035 patients in the Vascular Study Group of New England PVI database (2010- ...[more]

PMID: 29650705

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany believe that variation in vascular practice may affect limb salvage rates in patients with severe peripheral arterial disease. However, the extent of variation in procedural vascular care obtained by patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains unknown.Methods and resultsBy using Medicare 2003 to 2006 data, we identified all patients with CLI who underwent major lower extremity amputation in the 306 hospital referral regions described in the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare. For each patient, we studied the use of lower extremity vascular procedures (open surgery or endovascular intervention) in the year before amputation. Our main outcome measure was the intensity of vascular care, defined as the proportion of patients in the hospital referral region undergoing a vascular procedure in the year before amputation. Overall, 20,464 patients with CLI underwent major lower extremity amputations during the study period, and collectively underwent 25,800 vascular procedures in the year before undergoing amputation. However, these procedures were not distributed evenly: 54% of patients had no vascular procedures performed in the year before amputation, 14% underwent 1 vascular procedure, and 32% underwent >1 vascular procedure. In the regions in the lowest quintile of vascular intensity, vascular procedures were performed in 32% of patients. Conversely, in the regions in the highest quintile of vascular intensity, revascularization was performed in 58% of patients in the year before amputation (P<0.0001). In analyses accounting for differences in age, sex, race, and comorbidities, patients in high-intensity regions were 2.4 times as likely to undergo revascularization in the year before amputation than patients in low-intensity regions (adjusted odds ratio, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1-2.6; P<0.001).ConclusionsSignificant variation exists in the intensity of vascular care provided to patients in the year before major amputation. In some regions, patients receive intensive care, whereas in other regions, far less vascular care is provided. Future work is needed to determine the association between intensity of vascular care and limb salvage.

Project description:ObjectiveHistorically, open surgical bypass provided a durable repair among diabetic patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). In the current endovascular era, however, the difference in long-term outcomes between first-time revascularization strategies among patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) is poorly understood.MethodsWe reviewed the records of all patients with IDDM undergoing a first-time infrainguinal bypass graft (BPG) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting (PTA/S) for CLTI at our institution from 2005 to 2014. We defined IDDM as use of chronic insulin administration at baseline to control blood glucose levels and recorded the most recent glycated hemoglobin value available within 3 months before the procedure and fasting blood glucose level on the day of the procedure. We compared rates of wound healing, restenosis, reintervention, major amputation, and mortality between BPG and PTA/S in our population using χ2, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression analyses. As a sensitivity analysis, we calculated propensity scores and employed inverse probability weighting to account for nonrandom assignment to BPG vs PTA/S.ResultsOf 2869 infrainguinal revascularizations from 2005 to 2014, 655 limbs (316 BPG, 339 PTA/S) in 580 patients fit our criteria and underwent a first-time revascularization for CLTI. Patients undergoing BPG, compared with PTA/S, were similar in age (69 vs 68 years; P = .55), had similar rates of tissue loss (87% vs 91%; P = .07) and dialysis dependence (26% vs 28%; P = .55), were less likely to be hypertensive (84% vs 92%; P < .001), and were more likely to be current smokers (21% vs 14%; P = .02). There were no differences between BPG and PTA/S patients in mean glycated hemoglobin levels (8.1% vs 8.0%; P = .51) or mean fasting blood glucose levels (158 vs 150 mg/dL; P = .18). Although total hospital length of stay was significantly longer among BPG patients (11 vs 8 days; P < .001), perioperative complications did not differ, including acute kidney injury (19% vs 23%; P = .24), hematoma (6.0% vs 3.8%; P = .20), acute myocardial infarction (1.3% vs 2.1%; P = .43), and mortality (3.8% vs 3.0%; P = .55). BPG-first patients had significantly lower unadjusted 6-month rates of incomplete wound healing (49% vs 57%) and 5-year rates of restenosis (53% vs 72%) and reintervention (47% vs 58%; all P < .05). After adjustment, multivariable analysis suggested PTA/S-first intervention to be significantly associated with higher risk of restenosis (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.7) and reintervention (1.9 [1.2-2.7]). These results remained robust after inverse probability weighting.ConclusionsAmong patients with IDDM and CLTI, a bypass-first strategy is associated with similar 30-day outcomes and lower restenosis and reintervention rates. These data suggest that a bypass-first approach may best serve appropriately selected, anatomically suitable patients with IDDM and pedal ischemia that requires revascularization.

Project description:ObjectivePatients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) (ie, endovascular revascularization) for symptomatic lower extremity peripheral artery disease remain at high risk for major adverse limb and cardiovascular events. High-quality evidence demonstrates the addition of a low-dose oral factor Xa inhibitor to single antiplatelet therapy, termed dual pathway inhibition (DPI), reduces the incidence of major adverse events in this population. This study aims to describe the longitudinal trends in factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI, identify patient and procedural characteristics associated with factor Xa inhibitor use, and describe temporal trends in antithrombic therapy post-PVI before vs after VOYAGER PAD.MethodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative PVI registry from January 2018 through June 2022. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine predictors of factor Xa inhibitor initiation following PVI, reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 91,569 PVI procedures were deemed potentially eligible for factor Xa inhibitor initiation and were included in this analysis. Overall rates of factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI increased from 3.5% in 2018 to 9.1% in 2022 (P < .0001). The strongest positive predictors of factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI were non-elective (OR, 4.36; 95% CI, 4.06-4.68; P < .0001) or emergent (OR, 8.20; 95% CI, 7.14-9.41; P < .0001) status. The strongest negative predictor was postoperative dual antiplatelet therapy prescription (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.17-0.23; P < .0001), highlighting significant hesitation about use of DPI after PVI and limited translation of VOYAGER PAD findings into clinical practice. Antiplatelet medications remain the most common antithrombotic regimen after PVI, with almost 70% of subjects discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy and approximately 20% discharged on single antiplatelet therapy.ConclusionsFactor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI has increased in recent years, although the absolute rate remains low, and most eligible patients are not prescribed this treatment.

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.

Dataset Information

Outcomes of Peripheral Vascular Interventions in Select Patients With Lower Extremity Acute Limb Ischemia.

Publications

Outcomes of Peripheral Vascular Interventions in Select Patients With Lower Extremity Acute Limb Ischemia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets