Scleroderma and Raynaud Phenomenon: The Cold Truth Regarding the Use of Operative Management.

BACKGROUND

Raynaud phenomenon, with and without scleroderma, is a common vasospastic condition that manifests with extremity pain and skin discoloration. When conservative management fails, complications such as ischemia, ulceration, and gangrene may warrant surgical intervention. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors and use of surgical intervention in this population.

METHODS

A national insurance claims-based database with patient records from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was used for data collection. Patients with first diagnoses of Raynaud phenomenon, scleroderma, or both between 2005 and 2014 were identified. Primary outcomes included the presence of upper extremity amputation or vascular procedure, and history of amputation within 5 years of a vascular procedure. Secondary outcomes included hospital admissions, upper extremity wounds, and amputation within 1 year of diagnosis.

RESULTS

The Raynaud phenomenon, scleroderma, and Raynaud phenomenon with scleroderma cohorts consisted of 161,300, 117,564, and 25,096 patients, respectively. A diagnosis of both Raynaud phenomenon and scleroderma increased the odds of upper extremity amputation by 5.4-fold, vascular procedure by 4.8-fold, and amputation within 5 years of a vascular procedure by 1.5-fold. Patients with Raynaud phenomenon or scleroderma alone were 3.1 and 5.6 times less likely to undergo amputation within 5 years of a vascular procedure, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with both Raynaud phenomenon and scleroderma have higher likelihoods of having upper extremity amputations, vascular procedures, and amputations following vascular procedures compared to each diagnosis alone. Vascular procedures are rarely being performed. Further research is necessary to establish a standard of care and determine whether early and more frequent intervention with vascular procedures can decrease amputation rates in this patient population.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.