Long-term Outcomes of an Endovascular-First Approach for Diabetic Patients With Predominantly Tibial Disease Treated in a Multidisciplinary Setting

Background: Randomized studies suggest that open lower extremity revascularization procedures are associated with improved outcomes compared with endovascular peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). However, advances in endovascular technologies and treatment by multidisciplinary limb preservation teams have shown improved outcomes. The aim of our study was to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes after open versus PVI procedures in diabetic patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) treated in a multidisciplinary setting. Methods: All patients presenting to our multidisciplinary diabetic limb–preservation service from 6/2012 to 07/2018 were enrolled in a prospective database. Patients who underwent either an open lower extremity bypass (LEB) or a PVI for CLTI were included in the analysis. Perioperative (30-day) complications and 4-year patency and limb salvage rates were compared between PVI and LEB using chi-squared tests, Kaplan-Meier curve analyses, and stepwise multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Results: A total of 195 lower extremity revascularization procedures were performed in 120 patients (mean age: 65.0 ± 1.0 years, 61.7% male, 63.3% black), including 53 (27.2%) open procedures and 142 (72.8%) PVIs. Nearly two-thirds of procedures (65.6%) treated multilevel diseases, while 27.2% treated isolated tibial disease and 7.2% treated isolated femoropopliteal disease. More than half of the procedures (53.3%) were performed for Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) classification stage 4 limbs, 25.1% for stage 3, and 21.6% for stage 1/2. In the LEB group, 67.9% of targets were infrapopliteal. In the PVI group, 63.4% of procedures were isolated tibial interventions or were multilevel interventions including the tibial segment. Perioperative complications occurred in 52.8% of LEB versus 12.0% of PVI (P < 0.001). At 4 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference in crude (unadjusted) primary patency for PVI versus LEB (34.5 ± 6.6% vs. 49.6 ± 8.1, P = 0.89). Secondary patency was better for the LEB group (50.3 ± 7.4% vs. 55.4 ± 7.5%; P = 0.04), but amputation-free survival was similar (65.1 ± 6.7% vs. 60.9 ± 9.7%; P = 0.79). After adjusting for baseline differences between groups, primary patency (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 1.10) and amputation-free survival (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.34) remained similar for PVI versus LEB, but secondary patency was persistently lower for PVI (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.90). Conclusions: In this cohort of diabetic patients with CLTI undergoing predominantly tibial interventions, open revascularization was associated with a higher risk of perioperative complications than PVIs. While secondary patency rates were better after LEBs, our data suggest that an endovascular-first approach results in equivalent long-term amputation-free survival for diabetic patients treated in a multidisciplinary setting.