Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective multicenter study demonstrates improved amputation-free survival following successful revascularization in acute limb ischemia, highlighting the value of tailored procedures.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the 1-year clinical outcomes and predictors of technical success in acute limb ischemia (ALI) treatment. METHODS: A sub-analysis of the REtroSpective multiCenter study of endovascUlar or surgical intErvention for ALI (RESCUE ALI) study involved 185 patients with ALI and technical success (n = 131) or failure (n = 54) treated via surgical, endovascular, or hybrid revascularization between January 2015 and August 2021. The primary endpoint was 1-year amputation-free survival (AFS), and the secondary endpoints included preoperative complications and 1-year reintervention. RESULTS: The technical success group had a significantly higher 1-year AFS rate than the technical failure group (79% vs. 44%, p < 0.001). Perioperative complications rate showed no significant difference between the two groups. The incidence of reintervention was lower in the technical success group (17% vs. 30%, p = 0.049). Age ≥ 80 years, time from onset ≥ 24 h, no below-the-knee artery runoff, and preoperative c-reactive protein ≥ 5 mg/dL were negatively associated with technical success across all procedures. In surgical revascularization, no below-the-knee artery runoff was negatively associated with technical success. For endovascular revascularization, onset-to-treatment time ≥ 48 h was negatively related and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation was positively related to technical success. In hybrid revascularization, supra- to infrapopliteal lesions were negatively associated with technical success. CONCLUSIONS: Technical success in ALI treatment significantly enhances 1-year AFS rates. Thus, choosing the appropriate revascularization procedure based on predictors of technical success is crucial for improving patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haraguchi et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: