Comparative effectiveness of peripheral vascular intervention versus surgical bypass for critical limb ischemia in the Vascular Study Group of Greater New York.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the effectiveness of peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) was compared with surgical bypass grafting (BPG) for critical limb ischemia (CLI) in the Vascular Study Group of Greater New York (VSGGNY).

METHODS

Patients undergoing BPG or PVI for CLI at VSGGNY centers (2011-2013) were included. The Society for Vascular Surgery objective performance goals for CLI were used to directly compare the safety and effectiveness of PVI and BPG. Propensity score matching was used for risk-adjusted comparisons of PVI with BPG.

RESULTS

A total of 414 patients (268 PVI, 146 BPG) were treated for tissue loss (69%) or rest pain (31%). Patients undergoing PVI were more likely to have tissue loss (74.6% vs 57.5%; P < .001) and comorbidities such as diabetes (69.3% vs 57.5%; P = .02), heart failure (22% vs 13.7%; P = .04), and severe renal disease (13.1% vs 4.1%; P = .004). No significant differences were found between the groups across a panel of safety objective performance goals. In unadjusted analyses at 1 year, BPG was associated with higher rates of freedom from reintervention, amputation, or restenosis (90.4% vs 81.7%; P = .02) and freedom from reintervention or amputation (92.5% vs 85.8%, P = .045). After propensity score matching, PVI was associated with improved freedom from major adverse limb events and postoperative death at 1 year (95.6% vs 88.5%; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

By unadjusted comparison, early reintervention and restenosis are more prevalent with PVI. However, risk-adjusted comparison underscores the safety and effectiveness of PVI in the treatment of CLI.