Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for (Not Immediately) Threatened Acute Lower Limb Ischemia: Clinical Outcome and Efficacy.

IF 1.7 2区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Journal of Endovascular Therapy Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1177/15266028241287198
Sabrina A N Doelare, Safae Oukrich, Bich L Tran, Arno M Wiersema, Arjan W J Hoksbergen, Vincent Jongkind, Kak K Yeung
{"title":"Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for (Not Immediately) Threatened Acute Lower Limb Ischemia: Clinical Outcome and Efficacy.","authors":"Sabrina A N Doelare, Safae Oukrich, Bich L Tran, Arno M Wiersema, Arjan W J Hoksbergen, Vincent Jongkind, Kak K Yeung","doi":"10.1177/15266028241287198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to examine the short- and midterm outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for acute lower limb ischemia (ALI), classes Rutherford 1 and 2, with specific attention to functional outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients with ALI treated with CDT from 2 vascular centers between May 2018 and April 2021. Cases were analyzed in groups according to the Rutherford (1 and 2) classification. The primary endpoint was functional outcome during follow-up, assessed by Rutherford's chronic limb ischemia classification. Functional outcomes over time were analyzed by generalized estimating equations. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate reintervention, amputation, survival, and reintervention-free survival rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred cases were included (Rutherford 1, n = 51; Rutherford 2, n = 149). Total median treatment duration was 27 hours in the Rutherford 1 group and 39 hours in the Rutherford 2 group (<i>P</i>= 0.120). Initial clinical success was high (Rutherford 1, 82% vs Rutherford 2, 89%; <i>P</i>= 0.253). Complications were comparable between the 2 groups: major bleeding 8% vs 10% (<i>P</i>= 0.634), major amputation 4% vs 7% (<i>P</i>= 0.603), and mortality 6% vs 6% (<i>P</i>= 0.967). Median follow-up was 32 months (0-63 months). During follow-up, there was a high number of reinterventions (43%) and amputations (20%) in patients with Rutherford 1 limb ischemia, which was comparable to patients with Rutherford 2 limb ischemia. Fifty-six percent of the patients with Rutherford 1 limb ischemia reaching 2 years of follow-up were asymptomatic, 20% had mild and 16% had moderate to severe claudication. Initial clinical success following CDT and not immediately threatened ischemia at presentation are associated with improved functional outcomes during follow-up (<i>P</i> < 0.001 and <i>P</i>= 0.009, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In our cohort, CDT was effective in reestablishing arterial flow for not immediately threatened ALI. Patients with Rutherford 1 limb ischemia who receive CDT had a more favorable functional outcome than patients with more severe limb ischemia (Rutherford 2). However, reinterventions were required frequently, and there was a substantial risk of complications.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>Acute lower limb ischemia (ALI) does not immediately jeopardize limb survival in patients with Rutherford 1 limb ischemia but can induce disabling claudication. In such patients, catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is often performed to improve functional outcome. However, previous reports warned about the complications of CDT, and so far, mid- and long-term functional outcomes have not been reported. This study, in which a large cohort of patients with ALI was included, demonstrates a high technical success of CDT for not immediately threatened ALI with more favorable functional outcomes when compared with those with threatened limbs. Nevertheless, major complications pose a serious risk, and the need for reinterventions in the long term is high.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"15266028241287198"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028241287198","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the short- and midterm outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for acute lower limb ischemia (ALI), classes Rutherford 1 and 2, with specific attention to functional outcome.

Methods: This retrospective study included patients with ALI treated with CDT from 2 vascular centers between May 2018 and April 2021. Cases were analyzed in groups according to the Rutherford (1 and 2) classification. The primary endpoint was functional outcome during follow-up, assessed by Rutherford's chronic limb ischemia classification. Functional outcomes over time were analyzed by generalized estimating equations. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate reintervention, amputation, survival, and reintervention-free survival rates.

Results: Two hundred cases were included (Rutherford 1, n = 51; Rutherford 2, n = 149). Total median treatment duration was 27 hours in the Rutherford 1 group and 39 hours in the Rutherford 2 group (P= 0.120). Initial clinical success was high (Rutherford 1, 82% vs Rutherford 2, 89%; P= 0.253). Complications were comparable between the 2 groups: major bleeding 8% vs 10% (P= 0.634), major amputation 4% vs 7% (P= 0.603), and mortality 6% vs 6% (P= 0.967). Median follow-up was 32 months (0-63 months). During follow-up, there was a high number of reinterventions (43%) and amputations (20%) in patients with Rutherford 1 limb ischemia, which was comparable to patients with Rutherford 2 limb ischemia. Fifty-six percent of the patients with Rutherford 1 limb ischemia reaching 2 years of follow-up were asymptomatic, 20% had mild and 16% had moderate to severe claudication. Initial clinical success following CDT and not immediately threatened ischemia at presentation are associated with improved functional outcomes during follow-up (P < 0.001 and P= 0.009, respectively).

Conclusions: In our cohort, CDT was effective in reestablishing arterial flow for not immediately threatened ALI. Patients with Rutherford 1 limb ischemia who receive CDT had a more favorable functional outcome than patients with more severe limb ischemia (Rutherford 2). However, reinterventions were required frequently, and there was a substantial risk of complications.

Clinical impact: Acute lower limb ischemia (ALI) does not immediately jeopardize limb survival in patients with Rutherford 1 limb ischemia but can induce disabling claudication. In such patients, catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is often performed to improve functional outcome. However, previous reports warned about the complications of CDT, and so far, mid- and long-term functional outcomes have not been reported. This study, in which a large cohort of patients with ALI was included, demonstrates a high technical success of CDT for not immediately threatened ALI with more favorable functional outcomes when compared with those with threatened limbs. Nevertheless, major complications pose a serious risk, and the need for reinterventions in the long term is high.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
导管引导溶栓治疗(非立即)急性下肢缺血:临床结果和疗效。
研究目的本研究旨在探讨导管引导溶栓(CDT)治疗急性下肢缺血(ALI)(卢瑟福1级和2级)的短期和中期疗效,尤其关注功能疗效:这项回顾性研究纳入了2018年5月至2021年4月期间在2个血管中心接受CDT治疗的ALI患者。根据卢瑟福(1 和 2)分类对病例进行分组分析。主要终点是随访期间的功能预后,通过卢瑟福慢性肢体缺血分类进行评估。随时间推移的功能预后采用广义估计方程进行分析。Kaplan-Meier 分析法用于估算再干预率、截肢率、生存率和无再干预生存率:共纳入 200 个病例(卢瑟福 1,n = 51;卢瑟福 2,n = 149)。卢瑟福1组的总治疗时间中位数为27小时,卢瑟福2组为39小时(P= 0.120)。初始临床成功率很高(卢瑟福 1 组为 82%,卢瑟福 2 组为 89%;P= 0.253)。两组的并发症相当:大出血 8% vs 10% (P=0.634),大截肢 4% vs 7% (P=0.603),死亡率 6% vs 6% (P=0.967)。中位随访时间为 32 个月(0-63 个月)。在随访期间,卢瑟福1型肢体缺血患者的再干预率(43%)和截肢率(20%)较高,与卢瑟福2型肢体缺血患者相当。在随访2年的卢瑟福1型肢体缺血患者中,56%无症状,20%有轻度跛行,16%有中重度跛行。CDT 后的初步临床成功和发病时未立即受到缺血威胁与随访期间功能预后的改善有关(P < 0.001 和 P= 0.009):结论:在我们的队列中,CDT能有效重建未立即受到威胁的ALI患者的动脉血流。接受 CDT 的卢瑟福 1 型肢体缺血患者的功能预后比更严重的肢体缺血患者(卢瑟福 2 型)更佳。然而,患者经常需要重新进行干预,而且并发症的风险很大:临床影响:急性下肢缺血(ALI)不会立即危及卢瑟福1型肢体缺血患者的肢体存活,但会诱发致残性跛行。在这类患者中,通常采用导管引导溶栓疗法(CDT)来改善功能预后。然而,之前的报告对 CDT 的并发症提出了警告,迄今为止,中长期功能预后尚未见报道。本研究纳入了一大批 ALI 患者,表明 CDT 在治疗未立即受到威胁的 ALI 时技术成功率很高,与肢体受到威胁的患者相比,功能预后更佳。尽管如此,重大并发症仍构成了严重的风险,而且从长远来看,再次干预的需求很高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Endovascular Therapy (formerly the Journal of Endovascular Surgery) was established in 1994 as a forum for all physicians, scientists, and allied healthcare professionals who are engaged or interested in peripheral endovascular techniques and technology. An official publication of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists (ISEVS), the Journal of Endovascular Therapy publishes peer-reviewed articles of interest to clinicians and researchers in the field of peripheral endovascular interventions.
期刊最新文献
The Value of Different Systemic Inflammatory Response Indicators in the Long-term Prognosis of Type B Aortic Dissection Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair. Effect of Statins on the Prognosis After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Patients With Acute Type B Aortic Dissection. Potential of D-Dimer as a Tool to Rule Out Sac Expansion in Patients With Persistent Type 2 Endoleaks After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. Long-Term Outcomes and Late Complications of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using the GORE TAG or Conformable GORE TAG. Long-term Outcomes of the AcoArt II-BTK Trial: Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Compared With Uncoated Balloons for the Treatment of Infrapopliteal Artery Lesions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1