Current Status and Principles for the Treatment and Prevention of Diabetic Foot Ulcers in the Cardiovascular Patient Population: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Despite the known higher risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with type 2 diabetes, the pathophysiology and optimal management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), a leading complication associated with diabetes, is complex and continues to evolve. Complications of type 2 diabetes, such as DFUs, are a major cause of morbidity and mortality and the leading cause of major lower extremity amputation in the United States. There has recently been a strong focus on the prevention and early treatment of DFUs, leading to the development of multidisciplinary diabetic wound and amputation prevention clinics across the country. Mounting evidence has shown that, despite these efforts, amputations associated with DFUs continue to increase. Furthermore, due to increasing patient complexity of management secondary to comorbid conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, the management of peripheral artery disease associated with DFUs has become increasingly difficult, and care delivery is often episodic and fragmented. Although structured, process-specific approaches exist at individual institutions for the management of DFUs in the cardiovascular patient population, there is insufficient awareness of these principles in the general medicine communities. Furthermore, there is growing interest in better understanding the mechanistic underpinnings of DFUs to better define personalized medicine to improve outcomes. The goals of this scientific statement are to provide salient background information on the complex pathogenesis and current management of DFUs in cardiovascular patients, to guide therapeutic and preventive strategies and future research directions, and to inform public policy makers on health disparities and other barriers to improving and advancing care in this expanding patient population.

Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Treated With Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: In the BEST-CLI trial (Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia), a prespecified secondary objective was to assess the effects of revascularization strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia were randomized to surgical bypass (Bypass) or endovascular intervention (Endo) in 2 parallel trials. Cohort 1 included patients with single-segment great saphenous vein; cohort 2 included those lacking suitable single-segment great saphenous vein. HRQoL was assessed over the trial duration using Vascular Quality-of-Life (VascuQoL), European Quality-of-Life-5D (EQ-5D), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Summary (SF-12 MCS), Utility Index Score (SF-6D R2), and numeric rating scales of pain. HRQoL was summarized by cohort and compared within and between groups using mixed-model linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 1193 and 335 patients in cohorts 1 and 2 with a mean follow-up of 2.9 and 2.0 years, respectively, were analyzed. In cohort 1, HRQoL significantly improved from baseline to follow-up for both groups across all measures. For example, mean (SD) VascuQoL scores were 3.0 (1.3) and 3.0 (1.2) for Bypass and Endo at baseline and 4.7 (1.4) and 4.8 (1.5) over follow-up. There were significant group differences favoring Endo when assessed with VascuQoL (difference, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.02]; P=0.02), SF-12 MCS (difference, -1.03 [95% CI, -1.89 to -0.18]; P=0.02), SF-6D R2 (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.02 to -0.001]; P=0.03), numeric rating scale pain at present (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.49]; P=0.03), usual level during previous week (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48]; P=0.02), and worst level during previous week (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.56]; P=0.04). There was no difference between treatment arms on the basis of EQ-5D (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.004]; P=0.12) or SF-12 PCS (difference, -0.41 [95% CI, -1.2 to 0.37]; P=0.31). In cohort 2, HRQoL also significantly improved from baseline to the end of follow-up for both groups based on all measures, but there were no differences between Bypass and Endo on any measure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia deemed eligible for either Bypass or Endo, revascularization resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL. In patients with an available single-segment great saphenous vein for bypass, but not among those without one, Endo was statistically superior on some HRQoL measures; however, these differences were below the threshold of clinically meaningful difference.

Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) require revascularization to improve limb perfusion and thereby limit the risk of amputation. It is uncertain whether an initial strategy of endovascular therapy or surgical revascularization for CLTI is superior for improving limb outcomes. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we enrolled 1830 patients with CLTI and infrainguinal peripheral artery disease in two parallel-cohort trials. Patients who had a single segment of great saphenous vein that could be used for surgery were assigned to cohort 1. Patients who needed an alternative bypass conduit were assigned to cohort 2. The primary outcome was a composite of a major adverse limb event - which was defined as amputation above the ankle or a major limb reintervention (a new bypass graft or graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis) - or death from any cause. RESULTS: In cohort 1, after a median follow-up of 2.7 years, a primary-outcome event occurred in 302 of 709 patients (42.6%) in the surgical group and in 408 of 711 patients (57.4%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.79; P<0.001). In cohort 2, a primary-outcome event occurred in 83 of 194 patients (42.8%) in the surgical group and in 95 of 199 patients (47.7%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06; P = 0.12) after a median follow-up of 1.6 years. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups in the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BEST-CLI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02060630.).

Infrapopliteal Endovascular Interventions for Claudication Are Associated with Poor Long-Term Outcomes in Medicare-Matched Registry Patients.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data supporting or opposing the use of infrapopliteal peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) for the treatment of claudication. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the association of infrapopliteal PVI with long-term outcomes compared with isolated femoropopliteal PVI for the treatment of claudication. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients in the Medicare-matched Vascular Quality Initiative database who underwent an index infrainguinal PVI for claudication from January 2004-December 2019 using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 14,261 patients (39.9% female; 85.6% age ≥65 years, 87.7% non-Hispanic white) who underwent an index infrainguinal PVI for claudication, 16.6% (N=2,369) received an infrapopliteal PVI. The median follow-up after index PVI was 3.7 years (IQR 2.1-6.1). Compared to patients who underwent isolated femoropopliteal PVI, patients receiving any infrapopliteal PVI had a higher 3-year cumulative incidence of conversion to CLTI (33.3% vs. 23.8%; P<0.001); repeat PVI (41.0% vs. 38.2%; P<0.01); and amputation (8.1% vs. 2.8%; P<0.001). After risk-adjustment, patients undergoing infrapopliteal PVI had a higher risk of conversion to CLTI (aHR 1.39, 95% CI, 1.25-1.53); repeat PVI (aHR 1.10, 95% CI, 1.01-1.19); and amputation (aHR 2.18, 95% CI, 1.77-2.67). Findings were consistent after adjusting for competing risk of death; in a 1:1 propensity-matched analysis; and in subgroup analyses stratified by TASC disease, diabetes, and end-stage kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Infrapopliteal PVI is associated with worse long-term outcomes than femoropopliteal PVI for claudication. These risks should be discussed with patients.

Endovascular therapy versus bypass for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in a real-world practice.

OBJECTIVE: The recent Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) study showed that bypass was superior to endovascular therapy (ET) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) deemed suitable for either approach who had an available single-segment great saphenous vein (GSV). However, the superiority of bypass among those lacking GSV was not established. We aimed to examine comparative treatment outcomes from a real-world CLTI population using the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare-linked database. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative-Medicare-linked database for patients with CLTI who underwent first-time lower extremity revascularization (2010-2019). We performed two one-to-one propensity score matchings (PSMs): ET vs bypass with GSV (BWGSV) and ET vs bypass with a prosthetic graft (BWPG). The primary outcome was amputation-free survival. Secondary outcomes were freedom from amputation and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Three cohorts were queried: BWGSV (N = 5279, 14.7%), BWPG (N = 2778, 7.7%), and ET (N = 27,977, 77.6%). PSM produced two sets of well-matched cohorts: 4705 pairs of ET vs BWGSV and 2583 pairs of ET vs BWPG. In the matched cohorts of ET vs BWGSV, ET was associated with greater hazards of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.43; P < .001), amputation (HR = 1.30, 95% CI, 1.17-1.44; P < .001), and amputation/death (HR = 1.32, 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P < .001) up to 4 years. In the matched cohorts of ET vs BWPG, ET was associated with greater hazards of death up to 2 years (HR = 1.11, 95% CI, 1.00-1.22; P = .042) but not amputation or amputation/death. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world multi-institutional Medicare-linked PSM analysis, we found that BWGSV is superior to ET in terms of OS, freedom from amputation, and amputation-free survival up to 4 years. Moreover, BWPG was superior to ET in terms of OS up to 2 years. Our study confirms the superiority of BWGSV to ET as observed in the BEST-CLI trial.

Relevance of BEST-CLI trial endpoints in a tertiary care limb preservation program.

OBJECTIVE: Major adverse limb event-free survival (MALE-FS) differed significantly by initial revascularization approach in the BEST-CLI randomized trial. The BEST-CLI trial represented a highly selected subgroup of patients seen in clinical practice; thus, we examined the endpoint of MALE-FS in an all-comers tertiary care practice setting. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study of consecutive, unique patients who underwent technically successful infrainguinal revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (2011-2021). MALE was major amputation (transtibial or above) or major reintervention (new bypass, open bypass revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis). RESULTS: Among 469 subjects, the mean age was 70 years, and 34% were female. Characteristics included diabetes (68%), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (16%), Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) stage 4 (44%), Global Limb Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) stage 3 (62%), and high pedal artery calcium score (pMAC) (22%). Index revascularization was autogenous vein bypass (AVB) (30%), non-autogenous bypass (NAB) (13%), or endovascular (ENDO) (57%). The composite endpoint of MALE or death occurred in 237 patients (51%) at a median time of 189 days from index revascularization. In an adjusted Cox model, factors independently associated with MALE or death included younger age, ESRD, WIfI stage 4, higher GLASS stage, and moderate-severe pMAC, whereas AVB was associated with improved MALE-FS. Freedom from MALE-FS, MALE, and major amputation at 30 days were 90%, 92%, and 95%; and at 1 year were 63%, 70%, and 83%, respectively. MALE occurred in 144 patients (31%) and was associated with ESRD, WIfI stage, GLASS stage, pMAC score, and index revascularization approach. AVB had superior durability, with adjusted 2-year freedom from MALE of 72%, compared with 66% for ENDO and 51% for NAB. Within the AVB group, spliced vein conduit had higher MALE compared with single-segment vein (hazard ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.7; P = .008 after inverse propensity weighting), but there was no statistically significant difference in major amputation. Of the 144 patients with any MALE, the first MALE was major reintervention in 47% and major amputation in 53%. Major amputation as first MALE was associated with non-AVB index approach. Indications for major reintervention were symptomatic stenosis/occlusion (54%), lack of clinical improvement (28%), asymptomatic graft stenosis (16%), and iatrogenic events (3%). Conversion to bypass occurred after 6% of ENDO cases, two-thirds of which involved distal bypass targets at the ankle or foot. CONCLUSIONS: In this consecutive, all-comers cohort, disease complexity was associated with procedural selection and MALE-FS. AVB independently provided the greatest MALE-FS and freedom from MALE and major amputation. Compared with the BEST-CLI randomized trial, MALE after ENDO in this series was more frequently major amputation, with relatively few conversions to open bypass.

Characterization of cardiovascular serious adverse events after bypass or endovascular revascularization for limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular complications after revascularization to treat chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are a major concern that guides treatment. Our goal was to assess periprocedural cardiac and vascular serious adverse events (SAEs) in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: BEST-CLI was a prospective randomized trial comparing surgical (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization for patients with CLTI. Thirty-day SAEs, classified as cardiac or vascular, were analyzed. Adverse events are defined as serious when they affect safety in the trial, require prolonged hospitalization, result in significant disability or incapacitation, are life-threatening, or result in death. Interventions were analyzed in a per protocol fashion. RESULTS: In the BEST-CLI trial, 850 OPEN and 896 ENDO interventions were evaluated. Forty (4.7%) and 34 (3.8%) patients experienced at least one cardiac SAE after OPEN and ENDO intervention, respectively (P = .35). Overall, there were 53 cardiac SAEs (0.06 per patient) after OPEN and 40 (0.045 per patient) after ENDO interventions. Cardiac SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as related to ischemia (50.9%), arrhythmias (17%), heart failure (15.1%), arrest (13.2%), and heart block (3.8%); in the ENDO arm, they were classified as ischemia (47.5%), heart failure (17.5%), arrhythmias (15%), arrest (15%), and heart block (5%). Approximately half of SAEs were classified as severe for both OPEN and ENDO. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 30.2% and 25% in the OPEN and ENDO arms, respectively (P = .2). Vascular SAEs occurred in 58 (6.8%) and 86 (9.6%) of patients after OPEN and ENDO revascularization, respectively (P = .19). In total, there were 59 (0.07 per patient) and 87 (0.097 per patient) vascular SAEs after OPEN and ENDO procedures. Vascular SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as distal ischemia/infection (44.1%), bleeding (16.9%), occlusive (15.3%), thromboembolic (15.3%), cerebrovascular (5.1%), and other (3.4%); in the ENDO arm, they were distal ischemia/infection (40.2%), occlusive (31%), bleeding (12.6%), thromboembolic (8%), cerebrovascular (1.1%), and other (4.6%). SAEs were classified as severe for OPEN in 45.8% and ENDO in 46%. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 23.7% and 35.6% in the OPEN and ENDO arms (P = .35), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing OPEN and ENDO revascularization experienced similar degrees of cardiac and vascular SAEs. The majority were not related to the index intervention, but approximately half were severe.

Decreasing prevalence of centers meeting the Society for Vascular Surgery abdominal aortic aneurysm guidelines in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Based on data supporting a volume-outcome relationship in elective aortic aneurysm repair, the Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines recommend that endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) be localized to centers that perform ≥10 operations annually and have a perioperative mortality and conversion-to-open rate of ≤2% and that open aortic repair (OAR) be localized to centers that perform ≥10 open aortic operations annually and have a perioperative mortality ≤5%. However, the number and distribution of centers meeting the SVS criteria remains unclear. This study aimed to estimate the temporal trends and geographic distribution of Centers Meeting the SVS Aortic Guidelines (CMAG) in the United States. METHODS: The SVS Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all OAR, aortic bypasses, and EVAR from 2011 to 2019. Annual OAR and EVAR volume, 30-day elective operative mortality for OAR or EVAR, and EVAR conversion-to-open rate for all centers were calculated. The SVS guidelines for OAR and EVAR, individually and combined, were applied to each institution leading to a CMAG designation. The proportion of CMAGs by region (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were compared by year using a χ2 test. Temporal trends were estimated using a multivariable logistic regression for CMAG, adjusting by region. RESULTS: Overall, 67,865 patients (49,264 EVAR; 11,010 OAR; 7591 aortic bypasses) at 336 institutions were examined. The proportion of EVAR CMAGs increased nationally by 1.7% annually from 51.6% (n = 33/64) in 2011 to 67.1% (n = 190/283) in 2019 (ß = .05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.09; P = .02). The proportion of EVAR CMAGs across regions ranged from 27.3% to 66.7% in 2011 to 63.9% to 72.9% in 2019. In contrast, the proportion of OAR CMAGs has decreased nationally by 1.8% annually from 32.8% (n = 21/64) in 2011 to 16.3% (n = 46/283) in 2019 (ß = -.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.10; P < .01). Combined EVAR and OAR CMAGs were even less frequent and decreased by 1.5% annually from 26.6% (n = 17/64) in 2011 to 13.1% (n = 37/283) in 2019 (ß = -.12; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.07; P < .01). In 2019, there was no significant difference in regional variation of the proportion of combined EVAR and OAR CMAGs (P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: Although an increasing proportion of institutions nationally meet the SVS guidelines for EVAR, a smaller proportion meet them for OAR, with a concerning downward trend. These data question whether we can safely offer OAR at most institutions, have important implications about sufficient OAR exposure for trainees, and support regionalization of OAR.

Risk factors and associated outcomes of postoperative delirium after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) is a major vascular procedure that incurs a large physiologic demand, increasing the risk for complications such as postoperative delirium (POD). We sought to characterize POD incidence, identify delirium risk factors, and evaluate the effect of delirium on postoperative outcomes. We hypothesized that POD following OAR would be associated with increased postoperative complications and resource utilization. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all OAR cases from 2012 to 2020 at a single tertiary care center. POD was identified via a validated chart review method based on key words and Confusion Assessment Method assessments. The primary outcome was POD, and secondary outcomes included length of stay, non-home discharge, 90-day mortality, and 1-year survival. Bivariate analysis as appropriate to the data was used to assess the association of delirium with postoperative outcomes. Multivariable binary logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for POD and Cox regression for variables associated with worse 1-year survival. RESULTS: Overall, 198 OAR cases were included, and POD developed in 34% (n = 67). Factors associated with POD included older age (74 vs 69 years; P < .01), frailty (50% vs 28%; P < .01), preoperative dementia (100% vs 32%; P < .01), symptomatic presentation (47% vs 27%; P < .01), preoperative coronary artery disease (44% vs 28%; P = .02), end-stage renal disease (89% vs 32%; P < .01) and Charlson Comorbidity Index score >4 (42% vs 26%; P = .01). POD was associated with 90-day mortality (19% vs 5%; P < .01), non-home discharge (61% vs 30%; P < .01), longer median hospital length of stay (14 vs 8 days; P < .01), longer median intensive care unit length of stay (6 vs 3 days; P < .01), postoperative myocardial infarction (7% vs 2%; P = .045), and postoperative pneumonia (19% vs 8%; P = .01). On multivariable analysis, risk factors for POD included older age, history of end-stage renal disease, lack of epidural, frailty, and symptomatic presentation. A Cox proportional hazards model revealed that POD was associated with worse survival at 1 year (hazard ratio, 3.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-9.0; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: POD is associated with worse postoperative outcomes and increased resource utilization. Future studies should examine the role of improved screening, implementation of delirium prevention bundles, and multidisciplinary care for the most vulnerable patients undergoing OAR.

Surgery or endovascular therapy for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia requiring infrapopliteal interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The recent publication of randomized trials comparing open bypass surgery to endovascular therapy in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, namely, Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) and Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-2 (BASIL-2), has resulted in potentially contradictory findings. The trials differed significantly with respect to anatomical disease patterns and primary end points. We performed an analysis of patients in BEST-CLI with significant infrapopliteal disease undergoing open tibial bypass or endovascular tibial interventions to formulate a relevant comparator with the outcomes reported from BASIL-2. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients in BEST-CLI with adequate single segment saphenous vein conduit randomized to open bypass or endovascular intervention (cohort 1) who additionally had significant infrapopliteal disease and underwent tibial level intervention. The primary outcome was major adverse limb event (MALE) or all-cause death. MALE included any major limb amputation or major reintervention. Outcomes were evaluated using Cox proportional regression models. RESULTS: The analyzed subgroup included a total of 665 patients with 326 in the open tibial bypass group and 339 in the tibial endovascular intervention group. The primary outcome of MALE or all-cause death at 3 years was significantly lower in the surgical group at 48.5% compared with 56.7% in the endovascular group (P = .0018). Mortality was similar between groups (35.5% open vs 35.8% endovascular; P = .94), whereas MALE events were lower in the surgical group (23.3% vs 35.0%; P<.0001). This difference included a lower rate of major reinterventions in the surgical group (10.9%) compared with the endovascular group (20.2%; P = .0006). Freedom from above ankle amputation or all-cause death was similar between treatment arms at 43.6% in the surgical group compared with 45.3% the endovascular group (P = .30); however, there were fewer above ankle amputations in the surgical group (13.5%) compared with the endovascular group (19.3%; P = .0205). Perioperative (30-day) death rates were similar between treatment groups (2.5% open vs 2.4% endovascular; P = .93), as was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (5.3% open vs 2.7% endovascular; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suitable single segment great saphenous vein who underwent infrapopliteal revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia, open bypass surgery was associated with a lower incidence of MALE or death and fewer major amputation compared with endovascular intervention. Amputation-free survival was similar between the groups. Further investigations into differences in comorbidities, anatomical extent, and lesion complexity are needed to explain differences between the BEST-CLI and BASIL-2 reported outcomes.

Secondary interventions following open vs endovascular revascularization for chronic limb threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia experience a high burden of target limb reinterventions. We analyzed data from the Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) randomized trial comparing initial open bypass (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) treatment strategies, with a focus on reintervention-related study endpoints. METHODS: In a planned secondary analysis, we examined the rates of major reintervention, any reintervention, and the composite of any reintervention, amputation, or death by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1 with suitable single-segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], n = 1434; cohort 2 lacking suitable SSGSV, n = 396). We also compared the cumulative number of major and all index limb reinterventions over time. Comparisons between treatment arms within each cohort were made using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: In cohort 1, assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of a major limb reintervention (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.49; P < .001), any reintervention (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .001), or any reintervention, amputation, or death (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78; P < .001). Findings were similar in cohort 2 for major reintervention (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84; P = .007) or any reintervention (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98; P = .04). In both cohorts, early (30-day) limb reinterventions were notably higher for patients assigned to ENDO as compared with OPEN (14.7% vs 4.5% of cohort 1 subjects; 16.6% vs 5.6% of cohort 2 subjects). The mean number of major (mean events per subject ratio [MR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.58; P < .001) or any target limb reinterventions (MR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .001) per year was significantly less in the OPEN arm of cohort 1. The mean number of reinterventions per limb salvaged per year was lower in the OPEN arm of cohort 1 (MR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57; P < .001 and MR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79; P < .001 for major and all, respectively). The majority of index limb reinterventions occurred during the first year following randomization, but events continued to accumulate over the duration of follow-up in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention is common following revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Among patients deemed suitable for either approach, initial treatment with open bypass, particularly in patients with available SSGSV conduit, is associated with a significantly lower number of major and minor target limb reinterventions.

Predictors of amputation-free survival and wound healing after infrainguinal bypass with alternative conduits.

OBJECTIVE: Inadequate vein quality or prior harvest precludes use of autologous single segment greater saphenous vein (ssGSV) in many patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Predictors of patient outcome after infrainguinal bypass with alternative (non-ssGSV) conduits are not well-understood. We explored whether limb presentation, bypass target, and conduit type were associated with amputation-free survival (AFS) after infrainguinal bypass using alternative conduits. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study (2013-2020) was conducted of 139 infrainguinal bypasses performed for CLTI with cryopreserved ssGSV (cryovein) (n = 71), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (n = 23), or arm/spliced vein grafts (n = 45). Characteristics, Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) stage, and outcomes were recorded. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and classification and regression tree analysis modeled predictors of AFS. RESULTS: Within 139 cases, the mean age was 71 years, 59% of patients were male, and 51% of cases were nonelective. More patients undergoing bypass with cryovein were WIfI stage 4 (41%) compared with PTFE (13%) or arm/spliced vein (27%) (P = .04). Across groups, AFS at 2 years was 78% for spliced/arm, 79% for PTFE, and 53% for cryovein (adjusted hazard ratio for cryovein, 2.5; P = .02). Among cases using cryovein, classification and regression tree analysis showed that WIfI stage 3 or 4, age >70 years, and prior failed bypass were predictive of the lowest AFS at 2 years of 36% vs AFS of 58% to 76% among subgroups with less than two of these factors. Although secondary patency at 2 years was worse in the cryovein group (26% vs 68% and 89% in arm/spliced and PTFE groups; P < .01), in patients with tissue loss there was no statistically significant difference in wound healing in the cryovein group (72%) compared with other bypass types (72% vs 87%, respectively; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CLTI lacking suitable ssGSV, bypass with autogenous arm/spliced vein or PTFE has superior AFS compared with cryovein, although data were limited for PTFE conduits for distal targets. Despite poor patency with cryovein, wound healing is achieved in a majority of cases, although it should be used with caution in older patients with high WIfI stage and prior failed bypass, given the low rates of AFS.

The impact of revascularization strategy on clinical failure, hemodynamic failure, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia symptoms in the BEST-CLI Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Sustained clinical and hemodynamic benefit after revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is needed to resolve symptoms and prevent limb loss. We sought to compare rates of clinical and hemodynamic failure as well as resolution of initial and prevention of recurrent CLTI after endovascular (ENDO) vs bypass (OPEN) revascularization in the Best-Endovascular-versus-best-Surgical-Therapy-in-patients-with-CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: As planned secondary analyses of the BEST-CLI trial, we examined the rates of (1) clinical failure (a composite of all-cause death, above-ankle amputation, major reintervention, and degradation of WIfI stage); (2) hemodynamic failure (a composite of above-ankle amputation, major and minor reintervention to maintain index limb patency, failure to an initial increase or a subsequent decrease in ankle brachial index of 0.15 or toe brachial index of 0.10, and radiographic evidence of treatment stenosis or occlusion); (3) time to resolution of presenting CLTI symptoms; and (4) incidence of recurrent CLTI. Time-to-event analyses were performed by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1: suitable single segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], N = 1434; cohort 2: lacking suitable SSGSV, N = 396), and multivariate stratified Cox regression models were created. RESULTS: In cohort 1, there was a significant difference in time to clinical failure (log-rank P < .001), hemodynamic failure (log-rank P < .001), and resolution of presenting symptoms (log-rank P = .009) in favor of OPEN. In cohort 2, there was a significantly lower rate of hemodynamic failure (log-rank P = .006) favoring OPEN, and no significant difference in time to clinical failure or resolution of presenting symptoms. Multivariate analysis revealed that assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly lower risk of clinical and hemodynamic failure in both cohorts and a significantly higher likelihood of resolving initial and preventing recurrent CLTI symptoms in cohort 1, including after adjustment for key baseline patient covariates (end-stage renal disease [ESRD], prior revascularization, smoking, diabetes, age >80 years, WIfI stage, tissue loss, and infrapopliteal disease). Factors independently associated with clinical failure included age >80 years in cohort 1 and ESRD across both cohorts. ESRD was associated with hemodynamic failure in cohort 1. Factors associated with slower resolution of presenting symptoms included diabetes in cohort 1 and WIfI stage in cohort 2. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical and hemodynamic benefit after revascularization for CLTI is important to avoid persistent and recurrent CLTI, reinterventions, and limb loss. When compared with ENDO, initial treatment with OPEN surgical bypass, particularly with available saphenous vein, is associated with improved clinical and hemodynamic outcomes and enhanced resolution of CLTI symptoms.

Prosthetic conduits have worse outcomes compared with great saphenous vein conduits in femoropopliteal and infrapopliteal bypass in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Single segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV) traditionally has been considered the gold standard conduit for infrainguinal bypass. There are data supporting similar outcomes with prosthetic femoral-popliteal bypass. Moreover, some investigators have advocated for prosthetic conduit for femoral tibial bypass when GSV is inadequate or unavailable. We sought to evaluate long-term outcomes of infrainguinal bypass based on conduit type for treating chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). METHODS: Data from the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy of Patients with CLTI multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial, comparing infrainguinal bypass with endovascular therapy in patients with CLTI, were evaluated. In this as-treated analysis, we compared outcomes of infrainguinal bypass using prosthetic, alternative autogenous vein (AAV), and cryopreserved vein (Cryo) with SSGSV bypass. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable analyses were performed to examine the associations of conduit type with major adverse limb events (MALE), reinterventions, above-ankle amputations, and all-cause death rates. RESULTS: In total, 784 bypasses were analyzed (120 prosthetic, 33 AAV, 21 Cryo, AND 610 SSGSV). For prosthetic and SSGSV, the distribution was 357 femoropopliteal (93 prosthetic and 264 GSV) and 373 infrapopliteal (27 prosthetic and 346 GSV). The mean age for the overall cohort was 67.1 years; 27.4% were female, 29.9% were non-White, and 11.5% were of Hispanic ethnicity. Patients undergoing prosthetic bypass were older (69.2 years vs 66.7 years); more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (22.5% vs 14.0%), prior coronary artery bypass grafting (88.9% vs 66.5%), and prior stroke (23.3% vs 14%); but less often were of Hispanic ethnicity (5.8% vs 12.6%) and had diabetes (59.2% vs 71.3%) (P < .05 for all). For femoropopliteal bypass, use of prosthetic conduit was associated with increased major reinterventions at 3 years overall (19.0% vs 11.5%; P = .06) and on risk-adjusted analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-4.2; P = .028). No significant differences in MALE or death, above-ankle amputation, or death were observed. Outcomes were similar for bypasses to above-knee popliteal targets and below-knee popliteal targets. For infrapopliteal bypass, the use of a prosthetic conduit was associated with increased major reintervention (25.3% vs 10.3%; P = .005), death (68.6% vs 34.8%; P < .001), and MALE or death (90.0% vs 48.1%; P < .001) at 3 years. After risk adjustment, infrapopliteal bypass with prosthetic conduit was associated with higher major reintervention (HR, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.36-12.6; P = .012), above-ankle amputation (HR, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.59-13.5; P = .005), death (HR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.4-6.2; P = .004), and MALE or death (HR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.64-7.86; P = .001) compared with bypass with SSGSV. Overall, AAV had similar outcomes at 3 years as SSGSV; however, Cryo had significantly higher above-ankle amputation (50.0% vs 12.8%) (HR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.68-10.5; P = .002), major reintervention (41.9% vs 10.7%) (HR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.18-8.22; P = .02), and MALE/death (88.8% vs 37.8%) (HR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.43-6.14; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a prosthetic conduit in infrainguinal bypass is associated with inferior outcomes compared with bypass using SSGSV, particularly for bypass to infrapopliteal targets. Cryo grafts were infrequent and also demonstrated inferior outcomes. SSGSV remains the preferred conduit of choice for infrainguinal bypass.

The impact of diabetes mellitus on the outcomes of revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: Several observational studies have demonstrated an association between diabetes mellitus (DM) and above-ankle amputation after lower extremity revascularization (LER). However, data from prospective randomized trials is lacking. This analysis compares the outcomes of patients with and without DM enrolled in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: Baseline characteristics were compared between patients with and without DM in the BEST-CLI trial. Cox regression was used to determine the association between DM and major outcomes of major adverse limb events (MALE), reintervention, above-ankle amputation, and all-cause death. RESULTS: Among 1777 patients who underwent LER, 69.2% had DM. Compared with patients without DM, those with DM were significantly younger, less likely to be White, and more likely to be Hispanic. Patients with DM were more likely to have hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and renal disease and be on optimal medical therapy (antiplatelets and statins), whereas patients without DM were significantly more likely to be smokers and have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with DM were significantly more likely to present with late Wound Ischemia foot Infection (WIfI) stages (3-4) (73.7% vs 45.9%; P < .001) that were driven predominantly by differences in wound and infection grade. Conversely, patients without DM had significantly lower ankle pressures and toe pressures and were significantly more likely to have WIfI ischemia grade 3 compared with patients with DM (60% vs 52.5%; P = .016). At 3 years, patients with DM exhibited higher rates of above-ankle amputation and all-cause death compared with patients without DM. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significantly higher MALE or all-cause death compared with patients without DM (3-year estimate: 53.5% vs 46.4%; P < .001). After adjusting for potential confounders, regression analysis demonstrated that DM was independently associated with increased above-ankle amputation (1.75 [1.22-2.51]), all-cause death (1.63 [1.31-2.03]), and MALE or all-cause death (1.24 [1.04-1.47]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DM undergoing LER for chronic limb-threatening ischemia experienced a greater incidence of MALE or all-cause death compared with patients without DM. The impact of DM seems to be mediated by more severe wounds and infections at the time of presentation, and a higher prevalence of cardiac and renal disease.

Effectiveness of revascularisation for the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with an increased likelihood of delayed or non-healing of a diabetes-related foot ulcer, gangrene, and amputation. The selection of the most effective surgical technique for revascularisation of the lower limb in this population is challenging and there is a lack of conclusive evidence to support the choice of intervention. This systematic review aimed to determine, in people with diabetes and tissue loss, if direct revascularisation is superior to indirect revascularisation and if endovascular revascularisation is superior to open revascularisation for the outcomes of wound healing, minor or major amputation, and adverse events including mortality. METHODS: Title and abstract searches of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and EBSCO were conducted from 1980 to 30th November 2022. Cohort and case-control studies and randomised controlled trials reporting comparative outcomes of direct (angiosome) revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR) or the comparative outcomes of endovascular revascularisation and open or hybrid revascularisation for the outcomes of healing, minor amputation, and major amputation in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss (including foot ulcer and/or gangrene) were eligible. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational and cohort studies where details regarding the allocation to intervention groups were not provided. RESULTS: From a total 7086 abstracts retrieved, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of direct angiosome revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR), and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of endovascular and open revascularisation. One study was included in both comparisons. Of the included studies, 35 were observational (31 retrospective and 4 prospective cohorts) and 1 was a randomised controlled trial. Cohort study quality was variable and generally low, with common sources of bias related to heterogeneous participant populations and interventions and lack of reporting of or adjusting for confounding factors. The randomised controlled trial had a low risk of bias. For studies of DR and IR, results were variable, and it is uncertain if one technique is superior to the other for healing, prevention of minor or major amputation, or mortality. However, the majority of studies reported that a greater proportion of participants receiving DR healed compared with IR, and that IR with collaterals may have similar outcomes to DR for wound healing. For patients with diabetes, infrainguinal PAD, and an adequate great saphenous vein available for use as a bypass conduit who were deemed suitable for either surgical procedure, an open revascularisation first approach was superior to endovascular therapy to prevent a major adverse limb event or death (Hazard Ratio: 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.86). For other studies of open and endovascular approaches, there was generally no difference in outcomes between the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of available evidence for the effectiveness of DR and IR and open and endovascular revascularisation for wound healing and prevention of minor and major amputation and adverse events including mortality in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss is inconclusive, and the certainty of evidence is very low. Data from one high quality randomised controlled trial supports the use of open over endovascular revascularisation to prevent a major limb event and death in people with diabetes, infrainguinal disease and tissue loss who have an adequate great saphenous vein available and who are deemed suitable for either approach.

Effectiveness of bedside investigations to diagnose peripheral artery disease among people with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.

As a progressive disease process, early diagnosis and ongoing monitoring and treatment of lower limb peripheral artery disease (PAD) is critical to reduce the risk of diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU) development, non-healing of wounds, infection and amputation, in addition to cardiovascular complications. There are a variety of non-invasive tests available to diagnose PAD at the bedside, but there is no consensus as to the most diagnostically accurate of these bedside investigations or their reliability for use as a method of ongoing monitoring. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to first determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive bedside tests for identifying PAD compared to an imaging reference test and second to determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of non-invasive bedside tests in adults with diabetes. A database search of Medline and Embase was conducted from 1980 to 30 November 2022. Prospective and retrospective investigations of the diagnostic accuracy of bedside testing in people with diabetes using an imaging reference standard and reliability studies of bedside testing techniques conducted in people with diabetes were eligible. Included studies of diagnostic accuracy were required to report adequate data to calculate the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) which were the primary endpoints. The quality appraisal was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies and Quality Appraisal of Reliability quality appraisal tools. From a total of 8517 abstracts retrieved, 40 studies met the inclusion criteria for the diagnostic accuracy component of the review and seven studies met the inclusion criteria for the reliability component of the review. Most studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy of ankle -brachial index (ABI) (N = 38). In people with and without DFU, PLRs ranged from 1.69 to 19.9 and NLRs from 0.29 to 0.84 indicating an ABI <0.9 increases the likelihood of disease (but the extent of the increase ranges from a small to large amount) and an ABI within the normal range (≥0.90 and <1.3) does not exclude PAD. For toe-brachial index (TBI), a threshold of <0.70 has a moderate ability to rule PAD in and out; however, this is based on limited evidence. Similarly, a small number of studies indicate that one or more monophasic Doppler waveforms in the pedal arteries is associated with the presence of PAD, whereas tri- or biphasic waveform suggests that PAD is less likely. Several forms of bedside testing may also be useful as adjunct tests and 7 studies were identified that investigated the reliability of bedside tests including ABI, toe pressure, TBI, transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2 ) and pulse palpation. Inter-rater reliability was poor for pulse palpation and moderate for TcPO2. The ABI, toe pressure and TBI may have good inter- and intra-rater reliability, but margins of error are wide, requiring a large change in the measurement for it to be considered a true change rather than error. There is currently no single bedside test or a combination of bedside tests that has been shown to have superior diagnostic accuracy for PAD in people with diabetes with or without DFU. However, an ABI <0.9 or >1.3, TBI of <0.70, and absent or monophasic pedal Doppler waveforms are useful to identify the presence of disease. The ability of the tests to exclude disease is variable and although reliability may be acceptable, evidence of error in the measurements means test results that are within normal limits should be considered with caution and in the context of other vascular assessment findings (e.g., pedal pulse palpation and clinical signs) and progress of DFU healing.

Performance of non-invasive bedside vascular testing in the prediction of wound healing or amputation among people with foot ulcers in diabetes: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) confers a significantly increased risk of failure to heal and major lower limb amputation for people with diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU). Determining performance of non-invasive bedside tests for predicting likely DFU outcomes is therefore key to effective risk stratification of patients with DFU and PAD to guide management decisions. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the performance of non-invasive bedside tests for PAD to predict DFU healing, healing post-minor amputation, or need for minor or major amputation in people with diabetes and DFU or gangrene. METHODS: A database search of Medline and Embase was conducted from 1980 to 30 November 2022. Prospective studies that evaluated non-invasive bedside tests in patients with diabetes, with and without PAD and foot ulceration or gangrene to predict the outcomes of DFU healing, minor amputation, and major amputation with or without revascularisation, were eligible. Included studies were required to have a minimum 6-month follow-up period and report adequate data to calculate the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio for the outcomes of DFU healing, and minor and major amputation. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. RESULTS: From 14,820 abstracts screened 28 prognostic studies met the inclusion criteria. The prognostic tests evaluated by the studies included: ankle-brachial index (ABI) in 9 studies; ankle pressures in 10 studies, toe-brachial index in 4 studies, toe pressure in 9 studies, transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2 ) in 7 studies, skin perfusion pressure in 5 studies, continuous wave Doppler (pedal waveforms) in 2 studies, pedal pulses in 3 studies, and ankle peak systolic velocity in 1 study. Study quality was variable. Common reasons for studies having a moderate or high risk of bias were poorly described study participation, attrition rates, and inadequate adjustment for confounders. In people with DFU, toe pressure ≥30 mmHg, TcPO2 ≥25 mmHg, and skin perfusion pressure of ≥40 mmHg were associated with a moderate to large increase in pretest probability of healing in people with DFU. Toe pressure ≥30 mmHg was associated with a moderate increase in healing post-minor amputation. An ABI using a threshold of ≥0.9 did not increase the pretest probability of DFU healing, whereas an ABI <0.5 was associated with a moderate increase in pretest probability of non-healing. Few studies investigated amputation outcomes. An ABI <0.4 demonstrated the largest increase in pretest probability of a major amputation (PLR ≥10). CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic capacity of bedside testing for DFU healing and amputation is variable. A toe pressure ≥30 mmHg, TcPO2 ≥25 mmHg, and skin perfusion pressure of ≥40 mmHg are associated with a moderate to large increase in pretest probability of healing in people with DFU. There are little data available evaluating the prognostic capacity of bedside testing for healing after minor amputation or for major amputation in people with DFU. Current evidence suggests that an ABI <0.4 may be associated with a large increase in risk of major amputation. The findings of this systematic review need to be interpreted in the context of limitations of available evidence, including varying rates of revascularisation, lack of post-revascularisation bedside testing, and heterogenous subpopulations.

The intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS guidelines on peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes and a foot ulcer.

Diabetes related foot complications have become a major cause of morbidity and are implicated in most major and minor amputations globally. Approximately 50% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer have peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the presence of PAD significantly increases the risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes related foot complications since 1999. This guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis, prognosis and management of peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer. For this guideline the IWGDF, the European Society for Vascular Surgery and the Society for Vascular Surgery decided to collaborate to develop a consistent suite of recommendations relevant to clinicians in all countries. This guideline is based on three new systematic reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework clinically relevant questions were formulated, and the literature was systematically reviewed. After assessing the certainty of the evidence, recommendations were formulated which were weighed against the balance of benefits and harms, patient values, feasibility, acceptability, equity, resources required, and when available, costs. Through this process five recommendations were developed for diagnosing PAD in a person with diabetes, with and without a foot ulcer or gangrene. Five recommendations were developed for prognosis relating to estimating likelihood of healing and amputation outcomes in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer or gangrene. Fifteen recommendations were developed related to PAD treatment encompassing prioritisation of people for revascularisation, the choice of a procedure and post-surgical care. In addition, the Writing Committee has highlighted key research questions where current evidence is lacking. The Writing Committee believes that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals to provide better care and will reduce the burden of diabetes related foot complications.

The importance of optimal medical therapy in patients undergoing lower extremity bypass.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prevalence of peripheral artery disease is growing, with millions of people globally suffering its end-stage manifestation, chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Revascularization procedures like lower extremity bypass play a vital role in limb salvage but optimal medical therapy is essential for maximizing the benefit of these procedures and reducing long-term risks of cardiovascular and limb-related events. RECENT FINDINGS: Patients with PAD who undergo lower extremity bypass warrant a comprehensive approach to risk factor modification for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and limb-related complications. This includes appropriate use of high-intensity statins, smoking cessation, and management of hypertension and diabetes. Additionally, antiplatelet therapy is indicated for all patients with CLTI and additional treatment with low-dose anticoagulation may also be beneficial. SUMMARY: Optimal medical therapy is essential for optimizing outcomes in patients with PAD undergoing lower extremity bypass.