Browsing by Subject "Distal Bypass"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Contemporary Outcomes of Distal Lower Extremity Bypass for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia and a Model Based Comparison with Non-surgical Therapies
    (2021-03) Leckie, Katherin; Bakoyannis, Giorgos; Yiannoutsos, Constantin; Murphy, Michael
    Objective: Gold standard therapy for chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) is revascularization but in patients in whom below-the-knee bypass is indicated autologous vein conduit may not be available. Contemporary outcomes of distal bypass with suboptimal conduits have not been well described and recent advances in non-surgical therapies raise the question of whether in some cases there is evidence that these should be considered. Methods: Data was obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry as well as from a multi-center, randomized clinical trial of cell therapy. Incidence of major amputation after distal bypass was estimated for the VQI cohort by conduit type using non-parametric survival analysis with death as a competing risk. A cox proportional hazards model was then fit to the pooled data in a stepwise fashion with death as a competing risk, including evaluations for appropriate transformation, time dependency and interactions for each included covariate, and hazard ratios were estimated for the risk of major amputation by treatment. Results: At 365 days, the estimated cumulative incidence of major amputation with death as a competing risk is 25% after distal bypass with non-autologous biologic conduit (0.2499, 95% CI 0.2242 - 0.2785), 13% for prosthetic (0.1276, 95% CI 0.1172 - 0.1389) and 9% for GSV (0.0900, 95% CI 0.0848 - 0.0956). The cox proportional hazards model found a significant interaction between age and treatment. Compared to bypass with non-autogenous biologic, the hazard ratios for bypass with GSV were 0.41 (p<0.0001), 0.41 (p<0.0001), 0.42 (p<0.0001) and 0.42 (p<0.0001) respectively at ages 55, 60, 65 and 70 and for bypass with prosthetic were 0.68 (p=0.0043), 0.67 (p=0.0004), 0.65 (p<0.0001) and 0.64 (p<0.0001) respectively and for autologous cell therapy 0.22 (p=0.0005), 0.34 (p=0.0011), 0.52 (p=0.0196) and 0.76 (p=0.3677) respectively. No significant differences were found between best medical management and distal bypass with non-autologous biologic. Conclusion: The risk of major amputation after distal bypass is lowest in patients with GSV conduit and highest following bypass with non-autologous biologic. Using a semi-parametric model, cell therapy was estimated to significantly decrease the risk of amputation compared to distal bypass with non-autologous biologic conduit in younger patients.