Analysis of the retrograde tibial artery approach in lower extremity revascularization in an office endovascular center

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a retrograde tibial approach in revascularization of lower extremities for treatment of ischemia in anatomically challenging patients.

Methods: This is a retrospective study of 57 procedures performed between 2012 and 2016 using the retrograde approach to treat patients with flush occlusion, inability to cross the lesion, failed bypass, or hostile groin. Demographic data, Rutherford classes, vessels treated, and approach were noted. Type of procedure, complications, amputations, deaths, and patency of access tibial vessels and treated vessels were recorded. Ultrasound-guided tibial access was achieved through the anterior tibial artery, posterior tibial artery, or peroneal artery. Technical success was defined as residual stenosis of <30%. Restenosis was defined as two times increase in velocity at the site of treatment. In follow-up, access vessel patency and treated vessel patency were evaluated by physical examination and ultrasound. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess proportional hazards before using the marginal Cox model to determine statistical significance in risk of postintervention occlusion.

Results: In 53 patients (32 men) with an average age of 67 ± 10.6 years, Rutherford categories were as follows: class 2, n = 1; class 3, n = 37; class 4, n = 5; class 5, n = 12; and class 6, n = 2. Tibial arteries were successfully accessed in all limbs. Lesions were crossed in 56 of 57 limbs. One procedure was terminated because of local arterial dissection. Revascularization was achieved in 55 of 57 limbs. Within 30 days of the procedure, 2 of 2 Rutherford class 6 patients and 1 of 12 class 5 patients needed major amputation because of pre-existing disease. There was no 30-day mortality. Of 103 vessels treated, technical success was achieved in 97 (94%). Secondary patency for 103 vessels was 79% with mean follow-up of 6.66 ± 5.4 months. The primary patency was 90% compared with a primary assisted patency of 51%. There was no statistically significant difference in access vessel primary patency in follow-up: 86% (30/35) for anterior tibial artery, 80% (16/20) for posterior tibial artery, and 100% (2/2) for peroneal artery. In addition, in follow-up, there was no significant difference in incidence of occlusion of target vessels based on choice of access vessel used (P = .109).

Conclusions: In this group of anatomically challenging patients, a retrograde tibial approach was safely used. Accessing the tibial artery does not usually cause access vessel occlusion and resulted in no adverse outcomes. The majority of access vessels remained patent for future bypass if necessary.

Keywords: Atherectomy; Office endovascular center; PAD; Retrograde; Tibial artery.