Validation of the Global Limb Anatomic Staging System in first-time lower extremity revascularization

Abstract

ObjectiveThe Global Limb Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) was developed as a new anatomic classification scheme to grade the severity of chronic limb threatening ischemia. We evaluated the ability of this anatomic grading system to determine major adverse limb events after lower extremity revascularization. MethodsWe performed a single-institutional retrospective review of 1060 consecutive patients who had undergone 1180 first-time open or endovascular revascularization procedures for chronic limb threatening ischemia from 2005 to 2014. Using the review of angiographic images, the limbs were classified as GLASS stage 1, 2, or 3. The primary composite outcome was reintervention, major amputation (below- or above-the-knee amputation), and/or restenosis (>3.5× step-up by duplex criteria) events (RAS). The secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, failure to cross the lesion by endovascular methods, and a comparison between bypass vs endovascular intervention. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the event rates at 1 and 5 years, and Cox regression analysis was used to adjust for baseline differences among the GLASS stages. ResultsOf all patients undergoing first-time revascularization, imaging studies were available for 1180 procedures (91%) for GLASS grading. Of these procedures, 552 were open bypass (47%) and 628 were endovascular intervention (53%). Compared with GLASS stage 1 disease (n = 267, 23%), stage 2 (n = 367; 31%) and stage 3 (n = 546; 42%) disease were associated with a greater risk of RAS at 1 year (stage 1, 33% vs stage 2, 48% vs stage 3, 53%) and 5 years (stage 1, 45% [reference]; stage 2, 65%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-2.2; P < .001; stage 3, 69%; HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-2.9; P < .001). These differences were mainly driven by reintervention and restenosis rather than by major amputation. The 5-year mortality was similar for stage 2 and 3 compared with stage 1 disease (stage 1, 40% [reference]; stage 2, 45%; HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4; P = .69; stage 3, 49%; HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6; P = .11). For all attempted endovascular interventions, failure to cross a target lesion increased with advancing GLASS stage (stage 1, 4.5% vs stage 2, 6.3% vs stage 3, 13.3%; P < .01). Compared with open bypass (n = 552; 46.8%), endovascular intervention (n = 628; 53.3%) was associated with a higher rate of 5-year RAS for GLASS stage 1 (49% vs 34%; HR, 1.9; 95% CI, [1.1-3.5; P = .03), stage 2 (69% vs 52%; HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5; P < .01), and stage 3 (83% vs 61%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0; P < .01) disease. ConclusionsFor patients undergoing first-time lower extremity revascularization, the GLASS can be used to predict for reintervention and restenosis. Bypass resulted in better long-term outcomes compared with endovascular intervention for all GLASS stages.