Peroneal bypass versus endovascular peroneal intervention for critical limb ischemia.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Amputation, Surgical
Critical Illness
Endovascular Procedures
/ adverse effects
Female
Humans
Ischemia
/ diagnostic imaging
Limb Salvage
Lower Extremity
/ blood supply
Male
Middle Aged
Peripheral Arterial Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Vascular Grafting
/ adverse effects
Wound Healing
Critical limb ischemia
Lower extremity bypass
Peripheral arterial disease
Peroneal artery
Wound healing
Journal
Journal of vascular surgery
ISSN: 1097-6809
Titre abrégé: J Vasc Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8407742
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
received:
27
12
2017
accepted:
11
04
2018
entrez:
25
12
2018
pubmed:
26
12
2018
medline:
23
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The peroneal artery is a well-established target for bypass in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of peroneal artery revascularization in terms of wound healing and limb salvage in patients with CLI. Patients presenting between 2006 and 2013 with CLI (Rutherford 4-6) and isolated peroneal runoff were included in the study. They were divided into patients who underwent bypass to the peroneal artery and those who underwent endovascular peroneal artery intervention. Demographics, comorbidities, and follow-up data were recorded. Wounds were classified by Wound, Ischemia, foot Infection (WIfI) score. The primary outcome was wound healing; secondary outcomes included mortality, major amputation, and patency. There were 200 limbs with peroneal bypass and 138 limbs with endovascular peroneal intervention included, with mean follow-up of 24.0 ± 26.3 and 14.5 ± 19.1 months, respectively (P = .0001). The two groups were comparable in comorbidities, with the exception of the endovascular group's having more patients with cardiac and renal disease and diabetes mellitus but fewer patients with smoking history. Based on WIfI criteria, ischemia scores were worse in bypass patients, but wound and foot infection scores were worse in endovascular patients. Perioperatively, bypass patients had higher rates of myocardial infarction (4.5% vs 0%; P = .012) and incisional complications (13.0% vs 4.4%; P = .008). At 12 months, the bypass group compared with the endovascular group had better primary patency (47.9% vs 23.4%; P = .002) and primary assisted patency (63.6% vs 42.2%; P = .003) and a trend toward better secondary patency (74.2% vs 63.5%; P = .11). There were no differences in the rate of wound healing (52.6% vs 37.7% at 1 year; P = .09) or freedom from major amputation (81.5% vs 74.7% at 1 year; P = .37). In a multivariate analysis, neuropathy was associated with improved wound healing, whereas WIfI wound score, cancer, chronic renal insufficiency, and smoking were associated with decreased wound healing. Treatment modality was not a significant predictor (P = .15). Endovascular peroneal artery intervention results in poorer primary and primary assisted patency rates than surgical bypass to the peroneal artery but provides similar wound healing and limb salvage rates with a lower rate of complications. In appropriately selected patients, endovascular intervention to treat the peroneal artery is a low-risk intervention that may be sufficient to heal ischemic foot wounds.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30580779
pii: S0741-5214(18)31057-7
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.04.049
pmc: PMC6310052
mid: NIHMS978723
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
148-155Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HL098036
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Jul;48(1):137-43
pubmed: 18502081
Ann Surg. 2010 Nov;252(5):765-73
pubmed: 21037432
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Dec;62(6):1642-51.e3
pubmed: 26391460
J Vasc Surg. 1997 Sep;26(3):517-38
pubmed: 9308598
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Sep;64(3):616-22
pubmed: 27380993
Angiology. 2015 Mar;66(3):211-8
pubmed: 24650949
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1999 Jun;17(6):480-5
pubmed: 10375483
JAMA Surg. 2016 Nov 1;151(11):1070-1077
pubmed: 27551978
Int Angiol. 2007 Jun;26(2):81-157
pubmed: 17489079
J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52(4):834-42
pubmed: 20619586
Semin Vasc Surg. 1997 Mar;10(1):17-22
pubmed: 9068072
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Jan;59(1):220-34.e1-2
pubmed: 24126108
Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 2008 Dec;8(6):444-8
pubmed: 19103541
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Apr;53(4):1007-13
pubmed: 21215565
Am J Cardiol. 2012 Jul 1;110(1):136-41
pubmed: 22465315
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jul 08;5(7):
pubmed: 27402237