Open Versus Endovascular Revascularization of Below-Knee Arteries in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease and Critical Limb Ischemia.

Abstract

Evaluation of below-the-knee open revascularization (OR) versus endovascular revascularization (EVT) in patients with end-stage renal disease and critical limb ischemia (CLI) was performed. Seventy-seven dialysis patients with CLI and infrapopliteal involvement from 2007 to 2017 were included. Thirty-five patients received OR and 42 patients were treated with EVT. Survival, amputation-free survival (AFS) and wound-healing were evaluated. Furthermore, both groups were analyzed for differences as to anatomic (lesion length, runoff, pedal arch classification) and clinical (VSG risk score, WIfI score) characteristics. Amputation-free survival (1-year AFS: OR 54.5% vs 47.6% in EVT, 2-year AFS OR 38.3% vs 23.9% EVT, P = .201) did not significantly differ between OR and EVT nor did the wound healing rate (29% OR vs 31% EVT, P = .532). Overall survival was noticeably poor (1-year survival: 66.7% in OR and 49% in EVT, 2-year survival OR 47.4% vs EVT 27.7%; P = .088); evaluation of peripheral runoff (Rutherford score 6.9 OR vs 7.1 EVT, P = .499) and pedal arch classification as well as WIfI or VSG risk score (9.8 OR vs 9.6 EVT, P = .673) could not detect significant differences as to both the groups. Treated median lesion length was significantly increased in OR patients (OR 26 cm vs EVT 7 cm, P < .001), whereas the incidence of major adverse cardiac events was higher in EVT patients (67% in EVT vs 40% OR, P = .023). OR and EVT showed comparable outcomes as to AFS and wound healing. Poor overall survival remains the determining factor in patients with ESRD having CLI. Both groups differ in terms of anatomic features as lesion length and severity of comorbidities; considering the comparable long-term outcomes, decision-making should be based on these premises; individually applied, each method can contribute to limb salvage, although the overall survival remains limited.