Outcomes of tibial endovascular intervention in patients with poor pedal runoff

Abstract

ObjectiveTibial interventions for critical limb ischemia are now commonplace. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of pedal runoff on patient-centered outcomes after tibial endovascular intervention. MethodsA database of patients undergoing lower extremity endovascular interventions at a single urban academic medical center between 2006 and 2016 was retrospectively queried. Patients with critical ischemia (Rutherford 5 and 6) were identified. Preintervention angiograms were reviewed in all cases to assess pedal runoff. Each dorsalis pedis, lateral plantar, and medial plantar artery was assigned a score according to the reporting standards of the Society for Vascular Surgery (0, no stenosis >20%; 1, 21%-49% stenosis; 2, 50%-99% stenosis; 2.5, half or less of the vessel length occluded; 3, more than half the vessel length occluded). A foot score (dorsalis pedis + medial plantar + lateral plantar + 1) was calculated for each foot (1-10). Two runoff score groups were identified: good vs poor, <7 and ≥7, respectively. Patient-oriented outcomes of clinical efficacy (absence of recurrent symptoms, maintenance of ambulation, and absence of major amputation), amputation-free survival (survival without major amputation), and freedom from major adverse limb events (above-ankle amputation of the index limb or major reintervention [new bypass graft, jump/interposition graft revision]) were evaluated. ResultsThere were 1134 patients (56% male; average age, 59 years) who underwent tibial intervention for critical ischemia, with a mean of two vessels treated per patient and a mean pedal runoff score of 6 (47% had a runoff score ≥7). Overall major adverse cardiac events were equivalent at 30 days after the procedure in both groups. At 5 years, vessels with compromised runoff (score ≥7) had significantly lower ulcer healing (25% ± 3% vs 73% ± 4%, mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]) and a lower 5-year limb salvage rate (45% ± 6% vs 69% ± 4%, mean ± SEM) compared with those with good runoff (score <7). Patients with poor pedal runoff (score ≥7) had significantly lower clinical efficacy (23% ± 8% vs 38% ± 4%, mean ± SEM), amputation-free survival (32% ± 6% vs 48% ± 5%, mean ± SEM), and freedom from major adverse limb events (23% ± 9% vs 41% ± 8%, mean ± SEM) at 5 years compared with patients with good runoff (score <7). ConclusionsPedal runoff score can identify those patients who will not achieve ulcer healing and patient-centered outcomes after tibial intervention. Defining such subgroups will allow stratification of the patients and appropriate application of interventions.