Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Feb;59(2):392-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.09.001. Epub 2013 Nov 1.

Endovascular-first approach is not associated with worse amputation-free survival in appropriately selected patients with critical limb ischemia

Affiliations
Free article
Comparative Study

Endovascular-first approach is not associated with worse amputation-free survival in appropriately selected patients with critical limb ischemia

Karan Garg et al. J Vasc Surg. 2014 Feb.
Free article

Abstract

Objective: Endovascular interventions for critical limb ischemia are associated with inferior limb salvage (LS) rates in most randomized trials and large series. This study examined the long-term outcomes of selective use of endovascular-first (endo-first) and open-first strategies in 302 patients from March 2007 to December 2010.

Methods: Endo-first was selected if (1) the patient had short (5-cm to 7-cm occlusions or stenoses in crural vessels); (2) the disease in the superficial femoral artery was limited to TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II A, B, or C; and (3) no impending limb loss. Endo-first was performed in 187 (62%), open-first in 105 (35%), and 10 (3%) had hybrid procedures.

Results: The endo-first group was older, with more diabetes and tissue loss. Bypass was used more to infrapopliteal targets (70% vs 50%, P = .031). The 5-year mortality was similar (open, 48%; endo, 42%; P = .107). Secondary procedures (endo or open) were more common after open-first (open, 71 of 105 [68%] vs endo, 102 of 187 [55%]; P = .029). Compared with open-first, the 5-year LS rate for endo-first was 85% vs 83% (P = .586), and amputation-free survival (AFS) was 45% vs 50% (P = .785). Predictors of death were age >75 years (hazard ratio [HR], 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-6.6; P = .0007), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.1-5.6; P < .0001), and prior stroke (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03-2.3; P = .036). Predictors of limb loss were ESRD (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4; P = .015) and below-the-knee intervention (P = .041). Predictors of worse AFS were older age (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.13-3.7; P = .018), ESRD (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.1-5.11; P < .0001), prior stroke (P = .0054), and gangrene (P = .024).

Conclusions: At 5 years, endo-first and open-first revascularization strategies had equivalent LS rates and AFS in patients with critical limb ischemia when properly selected. A patient-centered approach with close surveillance improves long-term outcomes for both open and endo approaches.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources