Ye Kaichuang, Shi Huihua, Qin Jinbao, Yin Minyi, Liu Xiaobing, Li Weimin, Jiang Mi'er, Lu Xinwu
Department of Vascular Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, and Vascular Center of Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Department of Vascular Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, and Vascular Center of Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Oct;66(4):1133-1142.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.03.425. Epub 2017 Jul 8.
This study sought to compare the outcomes of endovascular recanalization (ER) vs autogenous venous bypass (AVB) for tibioperoneal arterial occlusion in thromboangiitis obliterans patients with critical lower limb ischemia.
A total of 90 limbs in 75 patients, successfully treated with ER (ER group, 35 patients, 43 limbs) and AVB (AVB group, 40 patients, 47 limbs) for tibioperoneal arterial occlusions from January 2009 to December 2015 in a single institution, were retrospectively analyzed. The characteristics and outcomes were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome was the amputation-free survival rate during follow-up; the secondary outcomes were patency rates, immediate failure, periprocedural complications, and rates of reintervention. Univariate and multivariate analysis to identify potentially significant predictors of amputation-free survival and primary patency in the whole study group was performed.
Not all patients in the ER group were bypass candidates because of unavailable runoff arteries or adequate conduit for bypass. Other baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Patients in the ER group had a much higher incidence of immediate failure (36.36% in femoropopliteal segment and 65.52% in tibioperoneal segment vs 14.89% in AVB bypass; P = .03 and < .001). Although patients in the ER group had a significantly higher rate of reintervention (62.79% vs 27.66%; P < .001) associated with a significantly lower primary patency rate (18.96% in femoropopliteal segment and 14.37% in tibioperoneal segment vs 60.41% in AVB bypass; P = .008 and < .001) and secondary patency rate (33.85% in femoropopliteal segment and 21.29% in tibioperoneal segment vs 68.78% in AVB bypass; P = .04 and .002) at 3 years, the amputation-free survival in the ER group and AVB group was similar at 1 year (92.9% vs 93.2%; P = .81) and 3 years (87.8% and 90.6%; P = .66). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that the presence of gangrene was independently associated with major amputation (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-4.3; P = .02); however, the presence of active ulcer was the only risk factor for poorer primary patency during follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-5.6; P = .04).
ER is a valid strategy for limb salvage in thromboangiitis obliterans patients who are unsuitable for bypass, contributing an acceptable amputation-free survival as high as with AVB, even though it is associated with lower patency rates and a higher rate of reintervention.
本研究旨在比较血管内再通术(ER)与自体静脉旁路移植术(AVB)治疗血栓闭塞性脉管炎合并严重下肢缺血患者胫腓动脉闭塞的疗效。
回顾性分析2009年1月至2015年12月在单一机构中成功接受ER(ER组,35例患者,43条肢体)和AVB(AVB组,40例患者,47条肢体)治疗胫腓动脉闭塞的75例患者的90条肢体。比较两组的特征和疗效。主要结局是随访期间的无截肢生存率;次要结局是通畅率、即刻失败率、围手术期并发症和再次干预率。对整个研究组进行单因素和多因素分析,以确定无截肢生存和原发性通畅的潜在显著预测因素。
由于无合适的流出道动脉或旁路移植的合适管道,ER组并非所有患者都适合进行旁路手术。两组的其他基线特征相似。ER组患者的即刻失败发生率更高(股腘段为36.36%,胫腓段为65.52%,而AVB旁路为14.89%;P = .03和< .001)。尽管ER组患者的再次干预率显著更高(62.79%对27.66%;P < .001),且原发性通畅率显著更低(股腘段为18.96%,胫腓段为14.37%,而AVB旁路为60.41%;P = .008和< .001),3年时的继发性通畅率也更低(股腘段为33.85%,胫腓段为21.29%,而AVB旁路为68.78%;P = .04和.002),但ER组和AVB组在1年(92.9%对93.2%;P = .81)和3年(87.8%和90.6%;P = .66)时的无截肢生存率相似。单因素和多因素分析表明,坏疽的存在与大截肢独立相关(风险比,2.24;95%置信区间,1.33 - 4.3;P = .02);然而,活动性溃疡的存在是随访期间原发性通畅较差的唯一危险因素(风险比,1.86;95%置信区间,0.55 - 5.6;P = .04)。
对于不适合旁路手术的血栓闭塞性脉管炎患者,ER是一种有效的肢体挽救策略,可提供与AVB相当的可接受的无截肢生存率,尽管其通畅率较低且再次干预率较高。