Real Life Outcomes of Infrapopliteal Endovascular and Surgical Bypass Intervention for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia in GLASS Stages II and III.

OBJECTIVE: Great efforts have been made to choose between bypass surgery and angioplasty as the first choice for revascularisation in chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI). Endovascular therapy predominates despite limited evidence for its advantages. The purpose of this observational cohort study was to investigate outcomes after open and endovascular infrapopliteal revascularisation in extensive infrainguinal arterial disease. METHODS: The medical records of 1 427 patients who underwent infrainguinal revascularisation exclusively for CLTI in the period January 2014 to February 2019 were reviewed. After detailed analysis, only infrapopliteal revascularisations classified as GLASS stage II or III were considered, resulting in 326 procedures. In total, 127 patients underwent endovascular therapy and 199 patients underwent bypass graft surgery (BGS). The primary endpoints included amputation free survival (AFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included the analyses of multiple factors related to long term AFS. RESULTS: Regarding the primary endpoint, AFS was 75.2% and 65.2% at one and three years, respectively. OS at one and three years was 91.2% and 83.1%, respectively. In the univariable analysis, the hazard of the combined endpoint of major amputation or death was higher after bypass surgery than after endovascular therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13 - 2.89; p = .013). After either revascularisation method, TASC II femoropopliteal D was associated with a higher risk of amputation or death (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.10 - 2.58; p = .015). Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed no association between the variables analysed for AFS. CONCLUSION: Patients with CLTI submitted to infrapopliteal revascularisation and classified as GLASS II and III had satisfactory AFS and OS rates after an individualised team conference decision. Furthermore, the revascularisation modality (endovascular or open) did not influence the AFS results.

Safety and efficacy of radial access in trauma in 65 trauma endovascular cases.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular techniques in trauma surgery are becoming increasingly important in patient management, with procedures such as pelvic and splenic angioembolization becoming the standard of care for certain injuries. Traditionally, such interventions are performed via femoral access, although the morbidity of this approach is not insignificant (3%-10%). Transradial access (TRA) is an attractive alternative, pioneered by cardiologists, with low rates of access site complications in patients undergoing coronary intervention. Recently, this technology has extended to other interventions. The aim of this study was to present the initial experience of a radial program in a busy trauma center, with specific regard to safety and complications. METHODS: The medical records of trauma patients undergoing endovascular procedures via TRA between March 2018 and December 2018 were queried for procedural and postoperative data. Demography and injury characteristics were presented for the overall cohort, followed by a comparison of procedural data and complications between laterality. Continuous variables were compared using a two-tailed t-test and categorical variables were compared using a χ2 test. RESULTS: Over a 9-month period, 65 patients underwent 81 interventions via TRA, most commonly solid organ or pelvic angiography/embolization. Radial artery access was achieved in all patients, with procedural success achieved in all but two patients (n = 63 [96.9%]) who had hypoplastic radial artery anatomy, who underwent ulnar access. The overall technique-related complication rate was 1.5% with no difference observed between laterality (n = 1; P = .523). One patient with an admission Glasgow Coma Score of 3 and coagulopathy developed radial artery thrombosis after pelvic angiography via right TRA. Mortality was seen in seven patients (10.8%) owing to hemorrhagic shock (n = 3 [42.8%]) or multiorgan failure (n = 4 [57.1%]). There were no cases of postprocedural access site bleeding, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, vascular injury, intraoperative arrhythmia or cerebrovascular accident, arteriovenous fistula formation, or infection. CONCLUSIONS: TRA is a feasible and low-risk alternative for endovascular intervention in the trauma patient. It yields good technical success with low morbidity. Although larger studies are needed to establish the full efficacy of TRA at the multi-institutional level, this single-institution study demonstrates the legitimacy of an alternative means for endovascular intervention in the trauma patient.