Assessment of revascularization impact on microvascular oxygenation and perfusion using spatial frequency domain imaging.

The microvasculature (with vessels <100 µm in diameter) plays a crucial role in tissue oxygenation, perfusion and wound healing in the lower limb. While this holds clinical significance, microvasculature evaluation in the limbs is not a standard practice. Surgical interventions focus on reestablishing blood flow in larger vessels affected by the peripheral artery disease (PAD). Nevertheless, the impact of revascularization on tissue oxygenation and perfusion in severe microvascular disease (MVD) is still unknown. We present the cases of two patients who underwent surgical revascularization for peripheral blood flow with different outcomes. Patient A had PAD, while B had PAD, severe MVD and a non-healing wound. Although both showed improvements in ankle-brachial index post-op, spatial frequency domain imaging metrics (which measure microvascular oxygenation and perfusion) remained unchanged in B, indicating a potential gap in assessing the surgical efficacy in MVD using ankle brachial index and emphasizing microcirculation evaluation in optimizing wound healing outcomes.

Stratification of Microvascular Disease Severity in the Foot Using Spatial Frequency Domain Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Microvascular disease (MVD) describes systemic changes in the small vessels (~100 um diameter) that impair tissue oxygenation and perfusion. MVD is a common but poorly monitored complication of diabetes. Recent studies have demonstrated that MVD: (i) is an independent risk factor for ulceration and amputation and (ii) increases risk of adverse limb outcomes synergistically with PAD. Despite the clinical relevance of MVD, microvascular evaluation is not standard in a vascular assessment. METHODS: We evaluated 299 limbs from 153 patients seen clinically for possible lower extremity PAD. The patients were assessed by ankle brachial index (ABI), toe brachial index (TBI), and spatial frequency domain imaging (SFDI). These measurements were evaluated and compared to patient MVD status, defined by clinical diagnoses of (in ascending order of severity) no diabetes; diabetes; diabetes + neuropathy; diabetes + neuropathy + retinopathy. RESULTS: SFDI-derived parameters HbT1 and StO2 were significantly different across the MVD groups (P < .001). A logistic regression model based on HbT1 and StO2 differentiated limbs with severe MVD (diabetes+neuropathy+retinopathy) from the larger group of limbs from patients with only diabetes (P = .001, area under the curve = 0.844). Neither ABI nor TBI significantly differentiated these populations. CONCLUSIONS: Standard assessment of PAD using ABI and TBI are inadequate for detecting MVD in at-risk populations. SFDI-defined HbT1 and StO2 are promising tools for evaluating MVD. Prospective studies with wound-based outcomes would be useful to further evaluate the role MVD assessment could play in routine clinical evaluation of patients at risk for lower extremity complications.