Short-term outcomes of endovascular management of acute limb ischemia using aspiration mechanical thrombectomy

Objective: Management of acute limb ischemia (ALI) has seen greater utilization of catheter-based interventions over the last two decades. Data on their efficacy is largely based on comparisons of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and open thrombectomy. During this time, many adjuncts to CDT have emerged with different mechanisms of action, including pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (PMT) and aspiration mechanical thrombectomy (AMT). However, the safety and efficacy of newer adjuncts like AMT have not been well established. This study is a retrospective analysis of the contemporary management of ALI comparing patients treated with aspiration mechanical thrombectomy to patients treated with the more established CDT adjunct, pharmacomechanical thrombolysis. Methods: Patients undergoing peripheral endovascular intervention for ALI using an adjunctive device were identified through query of the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Peripheral Vascular Intervention (PVI) module from 2014 to 2019. Patients with a nonviable extremity (Rutherford ALI Stage 3), prior history of ipsilateral major amputation, popliteal aneurysm, procedures that were deemed elective (>72 h from admission), procedures that did not utilize an endovascular adjunctive device, and patients without short-term follow-up were all excluded from analysis. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of freedom from major amputation and/or death in the perioperative time period. Results: We identified 528 patients with Rutherford ALI Stage 1 or 2 who were treated with an endovascular adjunct. 433 patients did not undergo aspiration mechanical thrombectomy (no AMT group) and 95 patients did undergo aspiration mechanical thrombectomy (AMT group). The amputation-free survival across all patients was 93.4%. There were significant differences in demographic, comorbidity, and treatment variables between groups (e.g., gender, prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), history of prior peripheral artery disease intervention, and history of prior infra-inguinal PVI), so a propensity score matched analysis was included to account for these group differences. In the propensity score matched analysis, there was no significant difference in major amputation (AMT 7.4% vs no AMT 3.2%, p = 0.13) or death (AMT 95.8% survival vs no AMT 98.4% survival, p = 0.23) with the use of aspiration mechanical thrombectomy. However, there was significantly worse amputation-free survival with the use of aspiration mechanical thrombectomy (AMT 88.4% vs no AMT 95.3%, p = 0.03). On multivariate analysis, prior supra-inguinal bypass (OR 4.85, 1.70-13.84, p = 0.003), Rutherford ALI Stage 2B (OR 3.13, 1.47-6.67, p = 0.003), and aspiration mechanical thrombectomy (OR 2.71, 1.03-7.17, p = 0.05) were associated with the composite outcome. Conclusions: Short-term amputation-free survival rates of endovascular management of acute limb ischemia are adequate across all modalities. However, aspiration mechanical thrombectomy was associated with significantly worse amputation-free survival compared to other endovascular adjuncts alone (i.e., pharmacomechanical thrombolysis). Severe limb ischemia (Rutherford ALI Stage 2B) and prior supra-inguinal bypass were associated with worse amputation-free survival regardless of the choice of endovascular intervention.