Advanced Cardiac & Vascular Centers for Amputation Prevention, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Metro Health-University of Michigan Health, Wyoming, Michigan.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Feb 15;95(3):447-454. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28639. Epub 2019 Dec 13.
Complex peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and critical limb ischemia (CLI) are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Endovascular techniques have become prevalent in treatment of advanced PAD and CLI, and use of techniques such as tibiopedal minimally invasive revascularization (TAMI), have been proven safe in small, single-center series. However, its use has not been systematically compared to traditional approaches.
This is a retrospective, multicenter analysis which enrolled 744 patients with advanced PAD and CLI who underwent 1,195 endovascular interventions between January 2013 and April 2018. Data was analyzed based on access used for revascularization: 840 performed via femoral access, 254 via dual access, and 101 via TAMI. The dual access group had the highest median Rutherford Class and lowest number of patent tibial vessels. Median fluoroscopy time, procedure time, hospital stay, and contrast volume were significantly lower in the TAMI access group when compared to both femoral/dual access groups. There was also a significant difference between all groups regarding location of target lesions: Femoropopliteal lesions were most commonly treated via femoral access; infrapopliteal lesions, via TAMI, and multilevel lesions via dual access.
Stand-alone TAMI or tibial access as an integral part of a dual access treatment strategy, is safe and efficacious in the treatment of patients with advanced PAD and CLI who have infrapopliteal lesions. Larger prospective and randomized studies may be useful to further validate this approach.
复杂外周动脉疾病(PAD)和严重肢体缺血(CLI)与高发病率和死亡率相关。腔内技术已成为治疗晚期 PAD 和 CLI 的主流方法,经皮胫腓微创血运重建术(TAMI)等技术的应用已在小样本、单中心系列研究中得到证实是安全的。然而,其应用尚未与传统方法进行系统比较。
这是一项回顾性、多中心分析,共纳入 744 例晚期 PAD 和 CLI 患者,他们在 2013 年 1 月至 2018 年 4 月期间接受了 1195 次血管腔内介入治疗。根据血运重建时使用的入路进行数据分析:840 例经股动脉入路,254 例经双入路,101 例经 TAMI 入路。双入路组的 Rutherford 分级中位数最高,胫前血管通畅数最低。与股动脉/双入路组相比,TAMI 入路组的透视时间、手术时间、住院时间和造影剂用量中位数显著降低。各组的目标病变部位也存在显著差异:股腘病变最常经股动脉入路治疗;胫下病变经 TAMI 治疗,多节段病变经双入路治疗。
在治疗存在胫下病变的晚期 PAD 和 CLI 患者时,单独使用 TAMI 或作为双入路治疗策略的一部分的胫部入路是安全有效的。更大规模的前瞻性和随机研究可能有助于进一步验证这种方法。