Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 51, Issue 2 , Pages 360-371.e1, February 2010

Functional status as a prognostic factor for primary revascularization for critical limb ischemia

  • H.C. Flu, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Vascular Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • J.H.P. Lardenoye, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Vascular Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • E.J. Veen, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Vascular Surgery, St. Elisabeth hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • D.P. Van Berge Henegouwen, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Vascular Surgery, St. Elisabeth hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • J.F. Hamming, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Vascular Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: J. F. Hamming, MD, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Department of Vascular Surgery, Albinusdreef 2, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands

Received 23 June 2009; accepted 14 August 2009.

Background

Lower extremity arterial revascularization (LEAR) is the gold-standard for critical lower limb ischemia (CLI). The goal of this study was twofold. First, we evaluated the long-term functional status of patients undergoing primary LEAR for CLI. Second, prognostic factors of long-term functional status and survival after primary LEAR for CLI were assessed.

Methods

All primary LEAR procedures were analyzed. Patients were stratified by preoperative functional status: ambulatory (group I) vs nonambulatory (group II). Patients were followed-up after 3 and 6 years. Adverse events (AEs) were categorized according to predefined standards: minor, surgical, failed revascularization, and systemic. Associated patient demographic/clinical data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate methods.

Results

There were 106 LEAR patients (group I: n = 42, 40% vs group II: n = 64, 60%). Group II patients were significantly older (75 vs 62 years; P = .00), were classified ASA 3-4 more frequently (78% vs 52%; P < .02), had more cardiac disease (n = 42, 66% vs n = 10, 24%; P = .00), renal disease (n = 26, 41% vs n = 7, 17%; P = .00), diabetes (n = 36, 56% vs n = 8, 19%; P = .00), hypertension (n = 47, 73% vs n = 13, 31%; P = .00) and severe CLI (n = 42, 66% vs n = 18, 38%; P < .01). Group II patients had a higher incidence of death (65.6% vs 14.3%; P = .00), minor AEs (n = 38, 26% vs n = 10, 22%; P = .00), surgical AEs (n = 48, 33% vs n = 12, 26%; P < .02) and systemic AEs (n = 24, 86% vs n = 4, 9%; P < .02). Also more unplanned reinterventions occurred in group II (n = 148, 76% vs n = 47, 24%; P = .00). Nonambulatory status was a multivariate independent predictor of nonambulatory status after LEAR during 6 years follow-up (odds ration [OR[: 21.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.76-166.77; P = .00). Pulmonary disease (OR: 7.49; 95% CI: 2.17-25.80; P = .00), not prescribing β-blockers (OR: 4.67; 95% CI: 1.28-17.03; P < .02), nonambulatory status (OR: 22.99; 95% CI: 6.27-84.24; P = .00), and systemic AEs (OR: 9.66; 95% CI: 1.84-50.57; P < .01) were independent predictors of death. Functional status was not improved in group II after long-term follow-up.

Conclusion

Nonambulatory patients suffer from extensive comorbid conditions. They are accompanied with an increased occurrence of AEs, unplanned reinterventions, and poor long-term survival rates. Successful LEAR did not improve their functional status after 6 years. This emphasizes that attempts for limb salvage must be carefully considered in these patients.

 

 Competition of interest: none.

 Additional material for this article may be found online at www.jvascsurg.org.

 The editors and reviewers of this article have no relevant financial relationships to disclose per the JVS policy that requires reviewers to decline review of any manuscript for which they may have a competition of interest.

PII: S0741-5214(09)01697-8

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2009.08.051

Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 51, Issue 2 , Pages 360-371.e1, February 2010