Comparative Outcomes of Peripheral Vascular Interventions in Patients on Chronic Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Inhibitors and Vitamin K Antagonists.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing revascularization for peripheral arterial disease (PAD), low-dose Factor Xa inhibitors (FXaI) taken with aspirin improved limb and cardiovascular outcomes compared to aspirin alone. Furthermore, in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism, FXaI are recommended over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for chronic anticoagulation. While studies have evaluated different perioperative anticoagulation regimens in patients treated for PAD, the optimal regimen for chronic anticoagulation in patients with PAD undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) has not been determined. This analysis compares outcomes of patients after PVI that require chronic anticoagulation with FXaI and VKA. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative-PVI database was used. Patients consistently treated with FXaI or VKA before the procedure, at discharge, and on long-term follow-up were defined as those receiving chronic anticoagulation. Patient demographics, procedural details, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between FXaI and VKA groups. RESULTS: A total of 109,268 patients were analyzed, and 6,885 were chronically anticoagulated with FXaI (N = 2,427) or VKA (N = 4,458). Patients anticoagulated with VKA were more frequently males (65.3% vs. 61.0%, P < 0.001) with end-stage renal disease (9.7% vs. 4.6%, P < 0.001) and more likely to be treated for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (58.1% vs. 52.7%, P < 0.001). Rates of hematoma following PVI were significantly higher in patients taking VKA compared to FXaI (3.5% vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that VKA were associated with increased perioperative hematoma than FXaI (odds ratio = 1.89 [1.30-2.82]). Compared to patients taking VKA, those receiving FXaI had lower rates of major amputation (6.7% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.020) and mortality (7.6% vs. 15.2%, P ≤ 0.001). Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients consistently anticoagulated with FXaI had improved amputation-free survival after PVI. Adjusting for significant patient and procedural characteristics, Cox proportional hazard regression demonstrated that there is an increased risk for major amputation or mortality in patients using VKA compared to FXaI (hazard ratio 1.61, [1.36-1.90]). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic anticoagulation with FXaI as compared to VKA was associated with superior perioperative and long-term outcomes in patients with PAD undergoing PVI. FXaI should be the preferred agents over VKA for chronic anticoagulation in patients with PAD undergoing PVI.

Perioperative complications of minor and major reinterventions for peripheral arterial disease.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) frequently require reinterventions after lower-extremity revascularization (LER) to maintain perfusion. Current Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines define reinterventions as major or minor based on the magnitude of the procedure. While prior studies have compared primary LER procedures of different magnitudes, similar studies for reinterventions have not been performed. The objective of this study is to compare perioperative outcomes associated with major and minor reinterventions. METHODS: Patients undergoing LER for PAD at a tertiary care center from 2013 to 2017 were included. A retrospective review of electronic medical records was performed, and reinterventions were categorized as major or minor based on the procedure magnitude. Minor reinterventions included endovascular procedures and open revision with patch angioplasty, while major reinterventions were characterized by open surgical or endovascular LER with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). Perioperative outcomes following LER were captured and compared for major and minor reinterventions. An additional subgroup analysis was performed comparing outcomes associated with major reinterventions stratified into open major surgical reinterventions and CDT. RESULTS: This study included 713 patients over a mean follow-up of 2.5 years. A total of 291 patients underwent 696 ipsilateral reinterventions (range = 1-12 reinterventions). Most reinterventions were minor (72.1%, N = 502) and 27.9% (N = 194) were major. Patients receiving reinterventions had an average age of 67.2 ± 11.5 and most were white (73.5%) males (60.1%) initially treated for claudication (58.2%) and CLTI (41.8%). There was significantly higher post-operative bleeding (9.8% vs 3.4%, p = .001), arterial thrombosis (3.1% vs 1.0%, p = .047), and acute renal failure (6.2% vs 2.4%, p = .014) after major reinterventions than minor. Additionally, major reinterventions had significantly higher return to the OR (17.0% vs 11.3%, p = .046) and longer hospital stays (7.5 vs 4.3 days, p = <.0001). Overall, major reinterventions were associated with significantly increased perioperative morbidity (37.6% vs 19.7%, p ≤ .001) with no difference in perioperative mortality. In the subgroup analysis, open reinterventions resulted in significantly longer hospital stays (8.6 days vs 5.5 days, p ≤ .001) and more wound infections than CDT (11.0% vs 0%, p = .017). However, there was no other significant difference in morbidity or mortality following treatment with open surgical reinterventions or CDT. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, major reinterventions after LER were associated with greater perioperative morbidity than minor reinterventions, with no difference in mortality. Major reinterventions performed via open surgery and CDT had similar morbidity and mortality.