Reinterventions in Patients with Claudication and Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) present with claudication or chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI). CLTI patients have a more advanced stage of atherosclerosis and increased comorbidities compared to claudicants, and are at an elevated risk of major amputation and mortality after lower extremity revascularization (LER). However, the frequency of reinterventions for claudication and CLTI have not been compared. Our hypothesis is that patients with CLTI undergo more frequent reinterventions to prevent major amputation.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review of consecutive patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization (LER) for PAD in 2013-2015 was performed. Patients were stratified based on indication for revascularization into claudication or CLTI. Patient characteristics, outcomes, and reinterventions were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were 826 patients undergoing LER and 44% (N = 361) had CLTI. Patients treated for CLTI were more likely to be smokers (P < 0.001), to have diabetes (P< 0.001), chronic renal insufficiency (P< 0.001), end stage renal disease (P< 0.001), and cardiac disease (P< 0.001). CLTI patients were less likely to be on optimal medical management as reflected by decreased rate of aspirin (P< 0.001), ADP receptor/P2Y12 inhibitors (P< 0.001), and statins (P< 0.001) compared to patients with claudication. Patients with CLTI had significantly higher major amputation (3.7% vs. 0.2%, P< 0.001) and mortality (1.4% vs. 0.2%, P = 0.092) at 30 days. At long-term follow up, patients with CLTI had higher rates of major amputation (15.5% vs. 1.3%, P < 0.001) and mortality (37.1% vs. 18.1%, P < 0.001) compared to patients with claudication. There was a significant difference in mean follow-up time between the 2 cohorts (claudication: 3.7 ± 1.5 years versus CLTI: 2.6 ± 1.8 years, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the ipsilateral reintervention rate between the 2 groups (claudication: 39.6% vs. CLTI: 42.7%, P = 0.37) or the mean number of ipsilateral reinterventions (claudication: 2.0 ± 1.6 vs. CLTI: 2.0 ± 1.7). However, after adjusting for follow-up time, the mean number of reinterventions per year was significantly higher for CLTI patients compared to patients with claudication (1.4 ± 2.2 vs. .6 ± 0.7 intervention per year, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing LER for CLTI undergo more frequent reinterventions over time compared to patients treated for claudication. Research on reinterventions after LER should include reporting of the frequency of reintervention adjusted for the follow up period in addition to the reintervention rate defined as the percentage of patients undergoing reintervention.