Search

Objectives The most effective first-line treatment between endovascular therapy and bypass surgery for patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) is still not well defined. The primary aim of the interim analysis of CRITISCH (Registry of First-Line Treatments in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia) was to compare both treatment options in a prospective confirmatory manner. Background Only 1 randomized controlled trial between endovascular therapy and bypass surgery has been published yet. Several retrospective studies showed comparable outcomes between the 2 treatment strategies, but in the majority of them, current endovascular technologies have not been included. Methods Between January 2013 and September 2014, 1,200 CLI patients (Rutherford 4 to 6) from 27 vascular centers were enrolled. The selection of the first-line treatment was left completely to the discretion of the responsible physician. The primary composite endpoint was amputation-free survival (AFS), that is, time to major amputation and/or death from any cause. A pre-specified interim analysis aimed at showing noninferiority of the endovascular therapy versus bypass surgery as to the hazard ratio (HR) of AFS (noninferiority bound = 1.33; interim α = 0.0058). Time-to-event analyses of major amputation, death, and the composite endpoint of reintervention and/or above-ankle amputation were also conducted. Results Endovascular therapy was applied to 642 (54%) and bypass surgery to 284 (24%) patients. Median follow-up time was 12 months in both groups. One-year AFS was 75% and 72%, respectively. The noninferiority of endovascular therapy versus bypass surgery for AFS was confirmed (HR: 0.91; upper bound of 1-sided (1 − 0.0058) confidence interval [CI]: 1.29; p = 0.003). An impact of the treatment strategy on time until death (HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.63; p = 0.453), major amputation (HR: 0.86; 95% CI:0.56 to 1.30; p = 0.463), and reintervention and/or above-ankle amputation (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.14; p = 0.348) was not observed. Conclusions The interim analysis confirmed that when physicians are free to individualize therapy to CLI patients, the endovascular-first approach achieved a noninferior AFS rate compared with bypass surgery. (Registry of First-Line Treatments in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia [CRITISCH]; NCT01877252)

Secondary prevention in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) is crucial for the reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Nonetheless, current recommendations are extrapolated from other high-risk populations because of the lack of CLI-dedicated trials. The aim of this explorative study was to evaluate the association of statin therapy with the outcomes of CLI patients.The First-Line Treatments in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (CRITISCH) registry is a prospective multicenter registry analyzing the effectiveness of all available treatment strategies in 1200 CLI patients. For the purposes of this analysis, patients were divided into two groups based on statin administration. Treatment crossovers and nonadherent patients were excluded from analysis. The primary composite end point of this study was the amputation-free survival (AFS). Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCEs), time to death, and time to major amputation were also analyzed.Statin therapy was applied in 445 individuals (37%), 371 (31%) patients received no statins, and 384 subjects were excluded from analysis (treatment crossovers). Patients receiving statins were more likely to be younger (P .001) and to have a history of coronary heart disease (P .001) or previous intervention at index limb (P .001). Patients receiving statin therapy had a lower hazard regarding AFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.63; P .001) and death (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.66; P .001) as well as lower odds of MACCE (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.69; P = .001). However, statin therapy was not associated with reduced amputation rates (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.67-1.56; P = .922). Statin effect on AFS was consistent among diabetics (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.70; P .001), patients with chronic kidney disease (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.87; P = .012), and patients older than 75 years (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60; P .001). Statin administration was also associated with an improved AFS in patients with antiplatelet medication (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-0.99; P = .049) and without antiplatelet medication (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.57; P = .001) and after both endovascular therapy (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76; P = .001) and bypass revascularization (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.68; P = .001).Statin therapy in CLI patients is associated with an increased AFS and lower rates of mortality and MACCEs without improving, however, the salvage rates of the affected limb.

Objective Analysis of in-hospital outcomes in patients treated for critical limb ischemia (CLI) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) compared to CLI patients with normal renal function. Methods A subgroup analysis of the German CRITISCH registry, a prospective multicenter registry, assessing the first-line treatment strategies in CLI patients in 27 vascular centers in Germany was performed. The study cohort was divided into ESRD patients (n = 102) and patients with normal renal function (n = 674; glomerular filtration rate >60/mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). The following first-line treatment strategies were assessed: endovascular therapy (EVT), bypass surgery, patch plasty, and no vascular intervention (conservative treatment, primary amputation). Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify differences between groups as to six end points: amputation or death (composite end point), amputation, death, hemodynamic failure, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and reintervention. Results Differences between the ESRD and non-ESRD group were found regarding the applied first-line therapy ( P = .016): The first-line treatment strategies in ESRD patients were EVT in 64% (n = 65), bypass surgery in 13% (n = 13), patch plasty in 11% (n = 11), and no vascular intervention in 13% (n = 13). In non-ESRD patients, EVT was applied in 48% (n = 326), bypass surgery in 27% (n = 185), patch plasty in 13% (n = 86), and no vascular intervention in 11% (n = 77). For ESRD patients, a noticeably increased risk of the composite end point (odds ratio [OR], 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.79; P = .017), amputation (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.35-7.31; P = .008), and hemodynamic failure (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.19-4.04; P = .012) was observed. Conclusions CLI patients on dialysis represent a challenging cohort prone to in-hospital death, amputation, and hemodynamic failure. Two-thirds of these high-risk patients are treated with EVT. Present data suggest that this modality is generally considered as the most favorable treatment option in this patient subgroup.

Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is growing in global prevalence and is associated with high rates of limb loss and mortality. However, a relevant gap of evidence about the most optimal treatment strategy still exists. The aim of this study of the prospective, multicenter First-Line Treatments in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (CRITISCH) registry was to assess the current practice of all first-line treatments strategies in CLI patients in German vascular centers.Between January 2013 and September 2014, five first-line treatment strategies-endovascular revascularization (ER), bypass surgery (BS), femoral/profundal artery patchplasty (FAP), conservative treatment, and primary amputation-were determined among CLI patients in 27 vascular tertiary centers. The main composite end point was major amputation or death, or both, during the hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were hemodynamic failure, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events, and reintervention. Univariate logistic models were additionally built to preselect possible risk factors for either event, which were then used as candidates for a multivariate logistic model.The study included 1200 consecutive patients. First-line treatment of choice was ER in 642 patients (53.4%), BS in 284 (23.7%), FAP in 126 (10.5%), conservative treatment in 118 (9.8%), and primary amputation in 30 (2.5%). The composite end point was met in 24 patients (4%) after ER, in 17 (6%) after BS, in 8 (6%) after FAP, and in 9 (8%) after conservative treatment (P = .172). The highest rate of in-hospital death was observed after primary amputation (10%) and of hemodynamic failure after conservative treatment (91%). Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events developed in 4% of patients after ER, in 5% after BS, in 6% after FAP, in 5% after conservative treatment, and in 13% after primary amputation. The reintervention rate was 8%, 14%, 6%, 5%, and 3% in each group, respectively. In the multivariate regression model, coronary artery disease (odds ratio [OR], 2.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-6.17) and previous myocardial infarction (PMI)6 months (OR, 3.67, 95% CI, 1.51-8.88) were identified as risk factors for the composite end point. Risk factors for amputation were dialysis (OR, 3.31, 95% CI, 1.44-7.58) and PMI (OR, 3.26, 95% CI, 1.23-8.36) and for death, BS compared with ER (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.10-10.0), renal insufficiency without dialysis (OR, 6.34; 95% CI, 1.71-23.5), and PMI (OR, 7.41; 95% CI, 2.11-26.0).The CRITISCH registry revealed ER as the most common first-line approach in CLI patients. Coronary artery disease and PMI6 months were independent risk factors for the composite end point. Special attention should be also paid to CLI patients with renal insufficiency, with or without dialysis, and those undergoing BS.