Differences in major limb outcomes by indication for lower extremity endovascular revascularization in patients receiving hemodialysis.

The incidence of lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) in patient receiving hemodialysis is remarkably higher than the general population. The treatment strategy and prognosis for LEAD patients differs depending on whether a patient has intermittent claudication (IC) or critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). However, the distinction between the prognosis in HD-dependent patients with IC and CLTI has not been fully elucidated. This study is to determine whether indication of PAD has a distinct impact on major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and limb events in patients receiving hemodialysis. The current study included 2321 prospectively enrolled patients from the Tokyo taMA peripheral vascular intervention research ComraDE registry (UMIN-CTR no. UMIN000015100) between September 2014 and December 2016. Out of the enrolled patients, 1644 were not receiving hemodialysis (non-HD patients) and 603 were receiving hemodialysis (HD patients). A composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke events defined as MACCE; while limb events were defined as a composite of unscheduled major amputation, unscheduled major lower limb surgery, acute limb ischemia, unscheduled endovascular treatment, and target lesion revascularization. Propensity score matching was applied among the non-HD and HD patients, in whole group, IC subgroup, and CLTI subgroup. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for the analysis of outcomes for the whole group, IC subgroup, and the CLTI subgroup. CLTI accounted for 75.5% of the HD patients, whereas IC was 63.4% in the non-HD patients. The HD patients exhibited more frequent below-the-knee lesions than those in the non-HD patients in both IC (p = 0.01) and CLTI (p < 0.001) subgroups. Overall, HD patients exhibited a significantly higher rate of MACCE at 24 months. This trend was similar for limb events in whole group and CLTI subgroup. In contrast, no significant differences in outcomes for limb events were found in IC subgroup. Although, prognosis after EVT in HD patients were significantly worse than non-HD patients, comparable outcome with non-HD patients was observed in the patients treated for IC. Clinical trial registration: This study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR No. UMIN000015100).

Diagnostic Performance of a Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography System With Low-Dose Technetium-99m as Assessed by Fractional Flow Reserve.

BACKGROUND: Although stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) using a cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) camera facilitates radiation dose reduction, only a few studies have evaluated its diagnostic accuracy in Japanese patients by applying fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively evaluated 102 consecutive patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease with a low-dose stress/rest protocol ((99m)Tc radiotracer 185/370 MBq) using CZT SPECT. Within 3 months, coronary angiography was performed and a significant stenosis was defined as ≥90% diameter narrowing on visual estimation, or as a lesion of <90% and ≥ 50% stenosis with FFR ≤0.80. To detect individual coronary stenosis, the respective sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86%, 75%, and 82% for left anterior descending artery stenosis, 76%, 81%, and 79% for left circumflex artery stenosis, and 87%, 92%, and 90% for right coronary artery stenosis. When limited to 92 intermediate stenotic lesions in which FFR was measured, stress SPECT showed 77% sensitivity, 91% specificity, and 84% accuracy, whereas the diagnostic value decreased to 52% sensitivity, 68% specificity, and 58% accuracy based only on visual estimation of ≥75% diameter narrowing. CONCLUSIONS: CZT SPECT demonstrated a good diagnostic yield in detecting hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses as assessed by FFR, even when using a low-dose (99m)Tc protocol with an effective dose ≤5 mSv. (Circ J 2016; 80: 1217-1224).