Search

Objective: Despite vascular intervention, patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) have a high risk of amputation. Furthermore, this group has a high risk for stump complications and reamputation. The primary aim of this study was to identify risk factors predicting reamputation after a major lower limb amputation in patients revascularized because of CLTI. The secondary aim was to investigate mortality after major lower limb amputation., Methods: There were 288 patients who underwent a major ipsilateral amputation after revascularization because of CLTI in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2007 to 2013. The main outcome was ipsilateral reamputation., Results: Of 288 patients, 50 patients had a reamputation and 222 died during the 11-year follow-up. Patients with ischemic pain as an indication for primary amputation had nearly four times higher risk for a reamputation compared with those with a nonhealing ulcer (subdistribution hazard ratio, 3.55; confidence interval, 1.55-8.17). Higher age was associated with an increased risk for death in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.03; confidence interval, 1.02-1.04)., Conclusions: Patients with ischemic pain as an indication for amputation have an elevated risk of reamputation. Ischemic pain may be indicative of a more extensive and proximal ischemia compared with patients with foot tissue loss. An extended evaluation of the preoperative circulation before amputation may facilitate the choice of amputation level and could lead to a reduction of reamputations., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) have a high risk of amputation and death. Death is a competing risk that affects the estimated amputation risk. Our aim was to find the specific risk factors for amputation for patients with CLI using competing risk analyses and compared these results with those from standard Cox regression analysis., Methods: Patients who had undergone revascularization for CLI (2009-2013, with follow-up data until 2017) in Stockholm were identified from the Swedish National Registry for Vascular Surgery. The main outcome was major amputation. The risk factors for amputation were assessed using competing risk analysis and compared with the risk factors for amputation-free survival identified using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis., Results: Of 855 patients with CLI, 178 had required a major amputation and 415 had died during the 8-year follow-up period. In the competing risk regression, age (subdistribution hazard ratio [sub-HR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.00), ambulatory status (independent vs bedridden; sub-HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 2.14-7.86), and ischemic wound vs rest pain (sub-HR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.72-5.36) were associated with amputation, considering death as a competing risk. In contrast, Cox regression analysis identified female vs male (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), renal impairment (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.61-2.67), ambulatory status (independent vs bedridden; HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.30-5.18), and ischemic wound vs rest pain (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.78-3.25) as risk factors., Conclusions: The risk factors associated with amputation differed when analyzing the data using competing risk regression vs Cox regression. The differences between the analyses indicated that a risk exists for biased estimates using standard survival methods when a strong competing risk such as death is present., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The management of infrarenal aortic aneurysms in high-risk patients remains a challenge. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with superior short-term mortality rates but unclear long-term results and has not been shown to improve survival in patients unfit for open repair (OR). The aim of this population-based study was to evaluate the outcome after elective EVAR compared with OR in a high-risk patient cohort., Methods: Prospectively collected data from January 2000 to December 2006 were retrieved from the Swedish Vascular Registry. The high-risk cohort was defined as age >or=60 years, American Anesthesiologists Association (ASA) class 3 or 4, and at least one cardiac, pulmonary, or renal comorbidity. These criteria were met by 217 of 1000 EVAR patients and 483 of 2831 OR patients. Primary end points were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves for survival and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed., Results: The crude 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates for EVAR vs OR for the whole treatment group (n = 3831) were 1.8% vs 2.8% and 8.0% vs 7.2%, respectively. In the high-risk cohort (n = 700), EVAR patients were approximately 2 years older and renal insufficiency and diabetes mellitus were more common, and smoking was more prevalent in the OR group. About two-thirds of EVAR procedures were performed at university hospitals and one-half of OR procedures were performed at county hospitals. In the high-risk cohort, there was no difference in mortality at 30-days (EVAR, 4.6% vs OR, 3.3%), but OR had lower 1-year mortality (8.5% vs 15.9%; P = .003). More bleeding complications occurred in the EVAR group, but more pulmonary complications occurred in the OR group; however, there was no difference in cardiac, cerebrovascular, or renal complications. The mean follow-up was 3.4 years. EVAR was associated with increased mortality risk after adjusting for age, ASA class, and comorbidities (hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.12; P = .02). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a lower mortality rate for patients undergoing OR, which remained during follow-up (P = .001)., Conclusions: Elective OR of aortic aneurysms seems to have a better outcome compared with EVAR in this specific, population-based, high-risk patient cohort after adjusting for covariates. We cannot confirm the benefit of EVAR from previous registry studies with a similar high-risk definition. In clinical practice, OR may be at least as good as EVAR in high-risk patients fit for surgery.