Saphenous vein size as a surrogate marker for mortality of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia undergoing endovascular therapy.

BACKGROUND: The size of the autologous vein graft is an important determinant of prognosis in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) undergoing bypass surgery. However, it is unclear whether reconstruction using a small vein graft would directly affect prognosis, or a subgroup having small veins would be subject to a poor prognosis. If the latter is true, having small veins would work as a marker for a poor prognosis even in patients with CLTI undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT). Therefore, we investigated the association between the size of saphenous veins and prognosis in patients with CLTI undergoing EVT. METHODS: This study included 209 consecutive patients with CLTI who primarily underwent EVT between January 2017 and December 2018. The diameter of the saphenous vein was measured at three locations (saphenous-femoral junction, knee, and ankle joint) per limb before EVT by ultrasonography. A small saphenous vein was defined as the mean diameter <3.0 mm. RESULTS: All-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with a small saphenous vein than in those with non-small one (46.3% versus 10.7% at 2 years, p<0.001). The multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that a small saphenous vein was independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Having a small saphenous vein was an independent marker for all-cause mortality in patients with CLTI undergoing EVT.

Risk Stratification for 2-Year Mortality in Patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Undergoing Endovascular Therapy.

AIM: The latest Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) recommend assessing the 2-year mortality risk in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) before revascularization. This study aimed to reveal whether the Wound, Ischemia and foot Infection (WIfI) classification, developed originally as a risk assessment tool for limb prognosis, would be useful in predicting the 2-year mortality risk in patients with CLTI in the era of GVG and WIfI. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 849 patients with CLTI who were primarily treated with endovascular therapy (EVT) between April 2010 and December 2016. The impact of baseline characteristics, including the WIfI classification on mortality risk, was investigated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 19.3 months, 243 deaths were observed. The 2-year mortality rate was 32.3%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that WIfI classification stages (p=0.037), in addition to male sex (p=0.010), age (p＜0.001), non-ambulatory status (p＜0.001), body mass index (p=0.002), and hemodialysis (p＜0.001), were independent predictors for an increased risk of mortality, while the Rutherford classification was not. CONCLUSIONS: WIfI classification stages were independently associated with mortality risk in patients with CLTI undergoing EVT, while the Rutherford classification was not. The WIfI classification would be a practical tool for planning the revascularization strategy in CLTI treatment.

Additional Risk Stratification Using Local and Systemic Factors for Patients with Critical Limb Ischaemia Undergoing Endovascular Therapy in the WIfI Era.

OBJECTIVES: While current guidelines describe the importance of assessing limb characteristics for predicting limb prognosis in patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI), several reports have also suggested that systemic factors are associated with limb prognosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether systemic factors have the same impact on wound healing as limb characteristics in CLI patients undergoing endovascular therapy. METHODS: A total of 735 patients who were treated for the first time for CLI with tissue loss between April 2010 and December 2015 were extracted from a prospective registry and data for the Wound, Ischaemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) classification were searched retrospectively. The predictors of wound healing were explored with Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The one year wound healing rate was 60.2% in WIfI stage 1-3 patients and 53.6% in WIfI stage 4 (p = .01). In WIfI stage 1-3, no systemic factors were significantly associated with wound healing, whereas, in WIfI stage 4 patients, non-ambulatory status [hazard ratio (HR) 1.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37-2.84], haemodialysis (HR 1.90; 95% CI 1.33-2.72) and an albumin level under 3.0 g/dL (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.31), were identified as independent risk factors for failure to achieve wound healing. If none or one of these risk factors were present, wound healing was comparable with WIfI 4 and WIfI 1-3 patients (67.7% vs. 63.6%, p = .89), whereas in patients with two or more risk factors wound healing was worse in WIfI 4 than in WIfI 1-3 patients (35.7% vs. 49.5%, p = .01). CONCLUSION: Non-ambulatory status, haemodialysis, and a low albumin level were additional systemic risk factors for impaired wound healing in patients with WIfI stage 4. The wound healing rate in WIfI stage 4 patients with one or fewer of these risk factors was comparable to that in WIfI stage 1-3.