Amputation and mortality rates of patients undergoing upper or lower limb surgical embolectomy and their predictors.

PURPOSE: To provide information on the outcomes of upper and lower limb surgical embolectomies and the factors influencing amputation and mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center analysis of 347 patients (female, N = 207; male, N = 140; median age, 76 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 63.2-82.6 years]) with acute upper or lower limb ischemia due to thromboembolism who underwent surgery between 2005 and 2019 was carried out. Patient demographics, comorbidities, medical history, the severity of acute limb ischemia (ALI), preoperative medication regimen, embolus/thrombus localization, procedural data, in-hospital complications/adverse events and their related interventions, and 30-day mortality were reviewed in electronic medical records. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test; in addition, univariate and multivariate logistic regression was conducted. RESULTS: The embolus/thrombus was localized to the upper limb in 134 patients (38.6%) and the lower limb in 213 patients (61.4%). The median length of hospital stay was 3.8 days (IQR, 2.1-6.6 days). The in-hospital major amputation rates for the upper limb, lower limb, and total patient population were 2.2%, 14.1%, and 9.5%, respectively, and the in-hospital plus 30-day mortality rates were 4.5%, 9.4%, and 7.5%, respectively. In patients with lower limb embolectomy, the predictor of in-hospital major amputation was the time between the onset of symptoms and embolectomy (OR, 1.78), while the predictor of in-hospital plus 30-day mortality was previous stroke (OR, 7.16). In the overall patient cohort, there were two predictors of in-hospital major amputation: 1) the time between the onset of symptoms and embolectomy (OR, 1.92) and 2) compartment syndrome (OR, 3.51). CONCLUSION: Amputation and mortality rates after surgical embolectomies in patients with ALI are high. Patients with prolonged admission time, compartment syndrome, and history of stroke are at increased risk of limb loss or death. To avoid amputation and death, patients with ALI should undergo surgical intervention as soon as possible and receive close monitoring in the peri- and postprocedural periods.

Restenosis rates in patients with ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy and contralateral carotid artery stenting.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients who underwent both procedures on different sides. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study (2001-2019), 117 patients (men, N = 78; median age at CEA, 64.4 [interquartile range {IQR}, 57.8-72.2] years; median age at CAS, 68.8 [IQR, 61.0-76.0] years) with ≥50% internal carotid artery stenosis who had CEA on one side and CAS on the other side were included. The risk of restenosis was estimated by treatment adjusted for patient and lesion characteristics. RESULTS: Neurological symptoms were significantly more common (41.9% vs 16.2%, P<0.001) and patients had a significantly shorter mean duration of smoking (30.2 [standard deviation {SD}, 22.2] years vs 31.8 [SD, 23.4] years, P<0.001), hypertension (10.1 [SD, 9.8] years vs 13.4 [SD, 9.1] years, P<0.001), hyperlipidemia (3.6 [SD, 6.6] years vs 5.0 [SD, 7.3] years, P = 0.001), and diabetes mellitus (3.9 [SD, 6.9] years vs 5.7 [SD, 8.9] years, P<0.001) before CEA compared to those before CAS. While the prevalence of heavily calcified stenoses on the operated side (25.6% vs 6.8%, P<0.001), the incidence of predominantly echogenic/echogenic plaques (53.0% vs 70.1%, P = 0.011) and suprabulbar lesions (1.7% vs 22.2%, P<0.001) on the stented side was significantly higher. Restenosis rates were 10.4% at 1 year, 22.3% at 5 years, and 33.7% at the end of the follow-up (at 11 years) for CEA, while these were 11.4%, 14.7%, and 17.2%, respectively, for CAS. Cox regression analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of restenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-3.10; P = 0.030) for CEA compared to that for CAS. After adjusting for relevant confounding factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, calcification severity, plaque echogenicity, and lesion location), the estimate effect size materially did not change, although it did not remain statistically significant (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95-3.60; P = 0.070). CONCLUSION: Intra-patient comparison of CEA and CAS in terms of restenosis tilts the balance toward CAS.