Contemporary outcomes of concomitant suprainguinal bypass with infrainguinal revascularization procedures in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia

Abstract

Objective: Combined suprainguinal and infrainguinal revascularization is sometimes necessary in the treatment of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). However, data on outcomes of concomitant revascularization procedures are lacking. We studied the outcomes of patients with CLTI who underwent suprainguinal bypass (SIB) alone, SIB with concomitant infrainguinal bypass (IIB), and SIB with concomitant infrainguinal peripheral endovascular intervention (IIPVI).

Methods: We reviewed all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative with CLTI who underwent SIB from January 2010 to June 2020. Logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, log-rank tests, and Cox regression were used to analyze outcomes. Outcomes were 30-day mortality, perioperative myocardial infarction, perioperative major amputation, 1-year amputation-free survival, and 5-year survival.

Results: Of 8037 patients included, 81.3% (n = 6537) underwent SIB alone, 9.7% (n = 783) underwent SIB+IIB, and 8.9% (n = 717) underwent SIB+IIPVI. The indication for surgery was rest pain in 5040 (62.5%) and tissue loss in 3031 (37.6%). There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality and perioperative myocardial infarction rates. However, there was 2.8-fold increased odds of perioperative major amputation in both SIB+IIPVI (odds ratio [OR], 2.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-5.88; P = .008) and SIB+IIB (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.38-5.54; P = .004) among patients with rest pain as compared with SIB alone. Comparing SIB+IIPVI with SIB alone, there were no significant differences in 1-year freedom from amputation and amputation-free survival. SIB+IIPVI was associated with a 27% increased risk of 5-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.55; P = .035). Compared with SIB alone, SIB+IIB was associated with 97% increased risk of 1-year major amputation among patients with rest pain (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.06-3.69; P = .033), but a 47% decreased risk of 1-year major amputation or death for patients with tissue loss (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.78; P = .001). SIB+IIPVI, compared with SIB+IIB, was associated with a two-fold increased risk of 1-year major amputation or death (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-2.23), P = .003) and a 52% increased risk of 5-year mortality (HR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.04-2.24; P = .032) among patients with tissue loss.

Conclusions: This study shows that SIB with concomitant infrainguinal revascularization in patients with rest pain is associated with an increased risk of amputation, whereas SIB+IIB in patients with tissue loss is associated with decreased risk of amputation or death. SIB+IIB outperformed SIB+IIPVI in patients with tissue loss. SIB with infrainguinal revascularization should be limited in patients with rest pain in line with current guidelines, but SIB+IIB may be preferred in patients with tissue loss.

Keywords: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia; Concomitant bypass; Endovascular revascularization; Lower extremity; Open revascularization; Peripheral arterial disease.