Infrapopliteal angioplasty for critical limb ischemia: Relation of TransAtlantic InterSociety Consensus class to outcome in 176 limbs

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Journal of Vascular Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.98). 07/2008; 48(1):128-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.02.027
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent data suggest that percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) may be appropriate primary therapy for critical limb ischemia (CLI). However, little data are available regarding infrapopliteal angioplasty outcomes based on TransAtlantic InterSociety Consensus (TASC) classification. We report our experience with infrapopliteal angioplasty stratified by TASC lesion classification.
From February 2004 to March 2007, 176 consecutive limbs (163 patients) underwent infrapopliteal angioplasty for CLI. Stents were placed for lesions refractory to PTA or flow-limiting dissections. Patients were stratified by TASC classification and suitability for bypass grafting. Primary outcome was freedom from restenosis, reintervention, or amputation. Primary patency, freedom from secondary restenosis, limb salvage, reintervention by repeat angioplasty or bypass, and survival were determined.
Median age was 73 years (range, 39-94 years). Technical success was 93%. Average follow-up was 10 months (range, 1-41 months). At 1 and 2 years, freedom from restenosis, reintervention, or amputation was 39% and 35%, conventional primary patency was 53% and 51%, and freedom from secondary restenosis and reintervention were 63% and 61%, respectively. Limb salvage was 84% at 1, 2, and 3 years. Within 2 years, 15% underwent bypass and 18% underwent repeat infrapopliteal PTA. Postoperative complications occurred in 9% and intraprocedural complications in 10%. The 30-day mortality was 5% (9 of 181). Overall survival was 81%, 65%, and 54% at 1, 2, and 3 years. TASC D classification predicted diminished technical success (75% D vs 100% A, B, and C; P < .001), primary restenosis, reintervention, or amputation (hazard ratio [HR], 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-5.5, P < .001), primary patency (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9, P < .004), secondary restenosis (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.6-6.4, P = .001), and limb salvage (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.3, P < .05). Unsuitability for surgical bypass also predicted restenosis, reintervention, or amputation, secondary restenosis, need for repeated angioplasty, and inferior primary patency and limb salvage rates.
Infrapopliteal angioplasty is a reasonable primary treatment for CLI patients with TASC A, B, or C lesions. Restenosis, reintervention, or amputation was higher in patients who were unsuitable candidates for bypass; however, an attempt at PTA may be indicated as an alternative to primary amputation. Although restenosis, reintervention, or amputation is high after tibial angioplasty for CLI, excellent limb salvage rates may be obtained with careful follow-up and reinterventions when necessary, including bypass in 15%.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical bypass has traditionally been the gold standard for treating critical limb ischemia caused by isolated infrapopliteal arterial disease (IP CLI). However, as endovascular techniques continue to progress, they are increasingly applied to this patient population, especially to the high-risk surgical cohort or patients with limited surgical options. This enthusiasm to employ endovascular interventions in IP CLI is accompanied by persistent controversies, as demonstrated in the recent literature. Percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty has been the predominant endovascular intervention applied to treat IP CLI and recent literature supports its role. The durability of percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty is limited, and thus this intervention is recommended for high-risk patients with limited life expectancy. Bare-metal stents for IP CLI currently do not have supportive data to warrant their use as a primary treatment. Newer drug-eluting stents improve patency and prevent restenosis, but they do not significantly improve patient clinical status compared with bare-metal stents alone. Drug-coated balloons are still relatively new tools in this arena and evidence of their safety and clear efficacy are still lacking. The data on atherectomy, in all of its forms, for IP CLI are overall variable, without any clear benefit to justify its increased complication risks and costs over other modalities. Use of retrograde tibial/pedal access for treating IP CLI as a viable alternative to antegrade access and treatment from a totally retrograde approach has recently been described. Level I evidence to aid in clarifying the true efficacy for each of these endovascular modalities is greatly needed. As we await these data, we must remember that, as with any arterial intervention, proper patient selection is extremely important and the intervention, whether endovascular or open surgical repair, should be tailored to the individual patient's anatomy and disease characteristics. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Seminars in Vascular Surgery 12/2014; 27(1). DOI:10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2014.12.003 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims at the assessment of the achievability of the endovascular treatment of patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) and the role of bypass in such patient. This is a prospective study conducted on patients with chronic atherosclerotic critical lower limb ischemia presenting to us over a period of 3 years. Patients presenting with nonsalvageable limbs requiring primary major amputation and nonatherosclerotic causes of CLI were excluded. Endovascular treatment was the first choice modality of treatment in revascularization of all patients. Open surgery was offered selectively for patient whom endovascular failed or complicated and for long TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II lesions in fit patients. This study included 511 cases of CLI, and the mean age was 64.5 years. Patients with Rutherford IV, V, and VI were 19.25, 60.5, and 19.25%, respectively. The TASC II aortoiliac lesions were as follows: A, B, C, and D in 33.7, 12,15.7, and 38.6%, respectively, and infrainguinal lesions were A, B, C, and D in 3.7, 19, 35.4, and 68.3%, respectively. A total of 78.3% of patients were treated by endovascular totally, while 16% were treated by surgery from the start, 3.7% of endovascular cases were converted to open surgery after failure of endovascular treatment, and 2% was offered hybrid treatment. Crossing of lesions by subintimal and intraluminal was 12.5 and 87.5%, respectively. Technical success in endovascular was 94%; however, we could successfully revascularize 96.8% of all CLI presented in this study by either surgery or endovascular. On 24 months follow-up, primary patency, secondary patency, and limb salvage by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty are 77.8, 84.7, and 90.7%, respectively. Revascularization by endovascular achieves high technical success and limb salvage in CLI, hence should be considered as preferred choice of treatment. However, both endovascular and surgery should not be counteracting each other and using both can revascularize 96.6% of CLI.
    International Journal of Angiology 09/2014; 23(3):197-206. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1382825
  • Seminars in Interventional Radiology 12/2014; 31(4):370-374. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1393974