Open versus Endovascular Intervention for Critical Limb lschemia: A Population-Based Study Discussion

BACKGROUND: Endovascular techniques are considered by many as the first-line treatment for critical limb ischemia (CLI). The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of endovascular therapy on CLI and amputation in South Carolina during the past decade. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, comparative analysis of treatment outcomes for CLI in the pre-endovascular era and the endovascular era. The South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics database was reviewed using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes to identify patients who underwent limb revascularization in 1996 (pre-endovascular era) and 2005 (endovascular era) for CLI and to determine those who required subsequent limb amputation and additional revascularization. RESULTS: The index limb revascularization procedures increased 33% from 571 in 1996 (420 [74%] open; 151 [26%] endovascular) to 758 in 2005 (373 [49%] open; 385 [51%] endovascular). The demographics and comorbidities for patients who underwent revascularization in 1996 were similar to those in 2005. The amputation rate for patients who underwent a revascularization procedure was 34% at 1 year and 43% at 3 years in 1996, compared with 34% at 1 year and 40% at 3 years in 2005 (p = NS). The percentage of patients who required an additional revascularization in the same calendar year increased from 8% in 1996 to 19% in 2005 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there has been an absolute increase in the number of revascularization procedures for CLI, with a clear shift toward endovascular therapy, the amputation rates for these patients have not changed. However, the shift to endovascular interventions has increased the number of secondary procedures required to maintain limb-salvage rates equivalent to those of the pre-endovascular era. (J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:555-563. (C) 2010 by the American College of Surgeons)