Aorto-iliac and infrainguinal artery occlusive disease: different revascularization options according to the critical limb threatening ischemia category.

Abstract

Critical limb threatening-ischemia (CLTI) can be due to an extensive involvement of both the aorto-iliac (AI) and the infra-inguinal (II) districts and the efficacy of and extensive AI+II vs. only AI revascularization is still matter of debate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome in CLTI patients with concomitant AI and II peripheral artery disease (PAD) after revascularization limited to the AI or extended also to the II segment. Patients with CLTI and concomitant AI (TransAtlantic InterSociety Consensus: C-D) and II PAD (Global-Anatomic-Staging-System: II-III) from 2016 to 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were compared according to type of revascularization: limited to AI vs. AI+II. Common femoral and profunda artery endarterectomy (C/P-TEA) was considered in both groups. Perioperative mortality, limb salvage, foot healing (within 6 months after surgery), necessity of adjunctive revascularization and survival were analyzed and the follow-up performed with clinical and duplex assessment every six months. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the composite event of limb salvage, wound healing and necessity of adjunctive revascularization during follow-up in AI vs. AI+II groups, through Kaplan Meier and Cox regression analysis. Over a total of 1105 peripheral revascularizations for CLTI, 96 (8.7%) patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. AI revascularization was performed in 38 (40%) and AI+II in 58 (60%). AI and AI+II groups were similar for preoperative risk factors and extension of PAD with the exception of American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Classification (ASA IV: 50% vs. 25%, P=0.02, respectively). The AI group was treated with angioplasty/stenting in all cases and with C/P-TEA in 20 (52%) cases. In the AI+II group, the AI district was treated by angioplasty/stenting in 55 (95%) and by aorto-bifemoral bypass in 3 (5%) and C/P-TEA in 20 (34%). The II revascularization was performed by femoro-popliteal/tibial bypass in 27 (47%); and endovascular revascularization in 31 (53%) patients. Minor amputation rate was similar between AI and AI+II revascularization (39% vs. 48%, P=1.0); length of stay, blood transfusion units, were significantly higher in AI+II group: 7±4 days vs. 12±5 days, P=0.04 and 2±2 vs. 4±2, P=0.02. The 30-day mortality was 7% with no differences according to the type of treatment. At a mean follow-up of 28±10 months, the overall limb salvage was 87±4% with similar results in AI vs. AI+II revascularization (95±5% vs. 86±6%; P=0.56). AI had a higher necessity of adjunctive revascularization and lower wound healing compared to AI+II (18±9% vs. 0%, P=0.02; 72% vs. 100%, P=0.001, respectively). AI+II was associated with a better primary endpoint compared to AI (87±5% vs. 53±9%, P=0.01), and it was confirmed in Rutherford 5 and 6 patients (100% vs. 54±14%, P=0.01; 78±9 vs. 50±13%, P=0.04), and no differences in Rutherford 4 (100% vs. 100%). Cox regression analysis confirmed AI+II as an independent protector for the primary outcome (hazard ratio: 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.71). CLTI with extensive PAD disease can be treated with limited AI revascularization in Rutherford 4 patients however in case of category 5 or 6 an extensive revascularization (AI+II) should be considered.