Outcomes After Open Surgical, Hybrid, and Endovascular Revascularization for Acute Limb Ischemia.

Abstract

To report the performance of surgical treatment (ST), hybrid treatment (HT), and endovascular treatment (ET) for patients with acute limb ischemia (ALI). This is a retrospective, comparative study of all consecutive patients with ALI treated in 2 tertiary centers between April 2010 and April 2020. Amputation and/or death (amputation-free survival; AFS) was the primary composite endpoint. Mortality, major amputation, and reintervention during follow-up were additionally analyzed. Proportional hazards modeling was used to identify confounders, results are presented as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 395 patients (mean age=71.1±13.6 years; 51.1% female) were treated during the study period. Surgical treatment was preferred in 150 patients (38%), while 98 were treated by HT (24.8%) and 147 by ET (37.2%). Rutherford class IIa was the most common clinical presentation in the ET group (50.3%), whereas Rutherford IIb was most common in the ST (54%) and HT (48%) groups (p<0.001). Significantly, more patients presented with a de novo lesion in the ST and HT groups (79.3% and 64.3%, respectively) compared with ET (53.7%; p<0.001). Median follow-up was 20 months (range=0-111 months). In the multivariate analysis, ET showed significantly better AFS during follow-up compared with ST (HR=1.89, 95% CI=1.2-2.9, p<0.001) and HT (HR=1.73, 95% CI=1.1-3.1, p<0.001). Mortality during follow-up was also significantly lower after ET compared with ST (HR=2.21, 95% CI=1.31-3.74, p=0.003) and HT (HR=2.04, 95% CI=1.17-3.56, p=0.012). Endovascular treatment was associated with lower amputation rate compared with ST (HR=2.27, 95% CI=1.19-4.35, p=0.013) but was comparable with HT (HR=2.00, 95% CI=0.98-4.06, p=0.055). Reintervention rates did not differ significantly between the groups (ET vs ST: HR=1.52, 95% CI=0.99-2.31, p=0.053; ET vs HT: HR=1.3, 95% CI=0.81-2.07, p=0.27). Endovascular treatment for ALI was associated with improved AFS and comparable reintervention rates compared with open surgical and hybrid therapy. Treatment of acute lower limb ischemia remains a challenge for clinicians with high morbidity and mortality rates. Endovascular revascularization is considered first line treatment for many and hybrid treatments are becoming more common, however data is limited to either old trials, small series or with short follow-up. We present herein our 10-year experience with all available devices and techniques for open surgical, endovascular and hybrid acute limb ischemia treatments and compare their outcomes.