RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The recent Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia 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 Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia trial.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Statin use has been studied and confirmed to have a beneficial impact on perioperative carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes. The benefits of Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) in hypertension, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and renal disease are well-known; however, the impact of continuing or withholding ACE-Is/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on CEA and CAS outcomes is not addressed well in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative statin use combined with ACE-Is/ARBs in patients undergoing CEA or CAS on mortality and morbidity using a multi-institutional database. METHODS: Using the data of all patients who underwent carotid artery revascularization, including CEA, transcarotid artery revascularization, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting from 2016 to 2021 in the Vascular Quality Initiative data, we determined as our primary outcome 30-day mortality/stroke after carotid revascularization based on periop exposure to statins alone, or the combination of statins and ACE-Is/ARBs. Secondary outcomes were postop myocardial infarction and postop congestive heart failure. Poisson regression with robust variance was used to determine postop outcomes comparing the combination of statin and ACE-Is/ARBs group with statins alone group. RESULTS: A total of 131,285 patients were included in the study, with 59,860 (46%) patients receiving statin only, and 71,425 (54%) receiving both statin and ACE-Is/ARBs preoperatively. Both patient groups differed significantly in preop clinical and demographic characteristics. After adjusting for potential confounders, the statins plus ACE-I/ARB group had a 12% lower risk of postop mortality/stroke (Incident Rate Ratio comparing Statin/ACE group to Statins Only group [IRR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.95, P = 0.001), 18% lower risk of postop congestive heart failure (IRR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.98, P = 0.029), and similar risk of postop myocardial infarction (IRR 1.05 95% confidence interval 0.91-1.20, P = 0.54) compared to the statin-only group. CONCLUSION: Statins combined with ACE-Is/ARBs perioperatively offer better protection compared to statins alone in patients undergoing carotid revascularization surgery. We recommend the continuation of ACE-Is/ARBs use in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, especially if they have concurrent hypertension. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the benefit of adding ACE-Is/ARBs.