Endovascular revascularization strategies using catheter-based thrombectomy versus conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute limb ischemia

Abstract

BackgroundAcute limb ischemia (ALI) is an important clinical event threatening both life and the affected limbs, but the optimal treatment for ALI remains undefined. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of thrombectomy approaches via either catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT).MethodsA total of 98 patients (mean age 69.7 years, 60 male) who underwent endovascular intervention for ALI from January 2015 to July 2019 were included. Of these, 57 were treated with primary CBT via a large-bore catheter, an AngioJet catheter or Rotarex catheter, and/or underwent low-dose CDT, and 41 were treated with primary CDT. The safety and effectiveness of CBT compared to conventional CDT and other various endovascular techniques were evaluated.ResultsMore Rutherford IIb patients were treated with primary CBT (68.4%) than CDT (26.8%; P < .001). Patients who underwent primary CDT achieved a higher technical success rate than those who underwent primary CBT in a shorter procedure time (P < .001), whereas 42.1% of patients who underwent CBT did not need adjunctive CDT. The duration and dosage of adjunctive CDT in the CBT group were significantly decreased compared with those in the primary CDT group (both P < .001), and the CBT group achieved a shorter in-hospital length of stay (P < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients treated with AngioJet and Rotarex catheters achieved slightly lower dosages, shorter CDT durations and shorter in-hospital stay lengths than those treated with large-bore catheters (P > .05). Clinical success was estimated to be achieved in 98.2% of patients who underwent CBT, which is similar to the 97.6% estimated in those who underwent primary CDT (P = 1.000), and this finding was similar among the CBT subgroups. Patients who underwent CBT had a higher procedure-related distal embolization rate and economic cost than those who underwent primary CDT (P < .05), but it had slightly fewer complications than those who underwent primary CDT (P = .059), especially minor complications (P = .036). The freedom from amputation at 6 and 12 months for CBT and CDT was assessed (93.0% vs 90.2% respectively, P = .625; 89.5% vs 82.9%, respectively, P = .34,). Comparable limb salvage was found for different techniques of large bore catheters, AngioJet catheters and Rotarex catheters. The Kaplan-Meier table analysis also showed similar limb salvage rates between groups.ConclusionsEndovascular treatment of ALI with the use of catheter-based therapies is an effective modality that can reduce the requirement for thrombolysis, with expected reductions in hemorrhagic complications, but at the risk of remediable distal emboli and increased economic cost. It has a similar clinical outcome to conventional CDT alone. Different CBT techniques have comparable efficacy but different adverse event profiles.