Clinical implications of the angiosome model in peripheral vascular disease.

Vascular surgery has seen a revolutionary transformation in its approach to peripheral vascular disease over the last 2 decades, fueled by technological innovation and a willingness by the field to adopt these changes. However, the underlying pathology behind critical limb ischemia and the significant rate of unhealed wounds and secondary amputations despite apparently successful revascularization needs to be addressed. In seeking to improve outcomes, it may be beneficial to examine our approach to vascular disease at the fundamental level of anatomy, the angiosome, to better dictate reperfusion strategies beyond a simple determination of open vs endovascular procedure. We performed a systematic review of the current literature concerning the significance of the angiosome concept in the realm of vascular surgery. The dearth of convincing evidence in the form of prospective trials and large patient populations, and the lack of a consistent, comparable vocabulary to contrast study findings, prevent recommendation of the conceptual model at a wider level for guidance of revascularization attempts. Further well-structured, prospective studies are required as well as emerging imaging strategies, such as indocyanine green dye-based fluorescent angiography or hyperspectral imaging, to allow wider adoption of the angiosome model in vascular operations.

Lower extremity bypass vs endovascular therapy for young patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease.

The uncertainty continues over the best approach to patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Medical therapy and risk factor modification is part of any treatment regimen; with this there is little disagreement. However, with the introduction of lesser invasive percutaneous technologies, the discussion regarding surgical and endovascular therapies has become more and more complicated. Unfortunately, there is a relative shortage of robust outcomes data to support many of our specific treatment recommendations. Younger patients are an especially troublesome patient cohort. They have consistently shown poorer outcomes after any intervention compared with older patients and may represent a subset of more aggressive atherosclerotic disease. Our debaters will discuss their preferred approaches to these difficult patients in the context of the currently available supporting literature.

Infrapopliteal percutaneous transluminal angioplasty versus bypass surgery as first-line strategies in critical leg ischemia: a propensity score analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, endovascular revascularization (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA]) has challenged surgery as a method for the salvage of critically ischemic legs (CLI). Comparison of surgical and endovascular techniques in randomized controlled trials is difficult because of differences in patient characteristics. To overcome this problem, we adjusted the differences by using propensity score analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised 1023 patients treated for CLI with 262 endovascular and 761 surgical revascularization procedures to their crural or pedal arteries. A propensity score was used for adjustment in multivariable analysis, for stratification, and for one-to-one matching. RESULTS: In the overall series, PTA and bypass surgery achieved similar 5-year leg salvage (75.3% vs 76.0%), survival (47.5% vs 43.3%), and amputation-free survival (37.7% vs 37.3%) rates and similar freedom from any further revascularization (77.3% vs 74.4%), whereas freedom from surgical revascularization was higher after bypass surgery (94.3% vs 86.2%, P < 0.001). In propensity-score-matched pairs, outcomes did not differ, except for freedom from surgical revascularization, which was significantly higher in the bypass surgery group (91.4% vs 85.3% at 5 years, P = 0.045). In a subgroup of patients who underwent isolated infrapopliteal revascularization, PTA was associated with better leg salvage (75.5% vs 68.0%, P = 0.042) and somewhat lower freedom from surgical revascularization (78.8% vs 85.2%, P = 0.17). This significant difference in the leg salvage rate was also observed after adjustment for propensity score (P = 0.044), but not in propensity-score-matched pairs (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: When feasible, infrapopliteal PTA as a first-line strategy is expected to achieve similar long-term results to bypass surgery in CLI when redo surgery is actively utilized.

N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of kidney injury in abdominal aortic surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial we studied the effects of IV N-acetylcysteine for prevention of renal injury in patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery. Seventy patients without previously documented renal dysfunction were randomly allocated to receive either N-acetylcysteine (150 mg/kg mixed in 250 mL of 5% dextrose infused in 20 min, followed by an infusion of 150 mg/kg in 250 mL of 5% dextrose over 24 h) or placebo. The infusion was started after the induction of anesthesia. The primary outcome measure was renal injury as measured by the increases in urinary N-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase (NAG)/creatinine ratio (indicator of renal tubular injury) and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (indicator of glomerular injury). Renal function was assessed by measuring plasma creatinine and serum cystatin C concentrations. The urinary NAG/creatinine ratio increased significantly from baseline to before crossclamp and remained increased on day 5 in both groups. The urinary albumin/creatinine ratio increased significantly from baseline to 6 h after declamping in the N-acetylcysteine group. However, the changes in the NAG/creatinine ratio and the albumin/creatinine ratio were not significantly different between the two groups. Plasma creatinine and serum cystatin C values remained unchanged during the study period in both groups. In conclusion, N-acetylcysteine did not offer any significant protection from renal injury during elective aortic operation in patients with normal preoperative renal function, and some degree of tubular injury seems to occur before aortic crossclamp.