Background: The aim of this study was to compare the 2-year outcomes of de novo versus postendovascular lesion treatment of femoropopliteal occlusions included in a national, multicenter, observational, prospective registry based on the treatment of critical Limb-threatening IschaeMia with infragenicular Bypass adopting in situ SAphenous VEin technique (LIMBSAVE) registry. Methods: From January 2018 to December 2019, 541 patients from 43 centers have been enrolled in the LIMBSAVE registry. Of these patients, 460 were included in the present study: 341 (74.1%) with de novo lesions (DN group) and 119 (25.9%) with postendovascular treatment lesions (PE group). Initial outcome measures were assessed at 30 days after treatment. Furthermore, at the 2-year follow-up, the estimated outcomes of primary patency, primary-assisted patency, secondary patency, and limb salvage were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and compared between groups with the log-rank test. Results: Both groups were homogeneous in terms of demographic data, preoperative risk factors, and clinical presentation. However, compared with DN group, more patients in PE group had a great saphenous vein diameter of less than 3 mm (11.1% vs 21%; P = .007). Intraoperatively, both groups showed similar distal anastomosis sites: below-the-knee popliteal artery (63% DN group, 66.4% PE group) and tibial vessel (37% DN group, 33.6% PE group) (P = .3). The overall mean duration of follow-up was 11.6 months (range, 1-24 months). At the 2-year follow-up, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of primary patency (66.3% DN group vs 74.1% PE group; P = .9), primary-assisted patency (78.2% DN group vs 79.5% PE group; P = .2), secondary patency (85.1% DN group vs 91.4% PE group; P = .2), and limb salvage (95.2% DN group vs 95.1% PE group; P = .9). Conclusions: The LIMBSAVE registry did not show a worsening of overall patency and limb salvages rates at the 2-year follow-up in patients undergoing in situ saphenous bypass after a failed endovascular approach for long femoropopliteal occlusive disease. This finding is in contrast with what has been published in literature.

Comparison of long occlusive femoropopliteal de novo versus previous endovascularly treated lesions managed with in situ saphenous bypass / Troisi, N.; Michelagnoli, S.; Adami, D.; Berchiolli, R.; Accrocca, F.; Amico, A.; Angelini, A.; Arnuzzo, L.; Marchetti, A. A.; Attisani, L.; Bafile, G.; Baldino, G.; Barbanti, E.; Bartoli, S.; Bellosta, R.; Benedetto, F.; Borioni, R.; Briolini, F.; Busoni, C.; Camparini, S.; Cappiello, P.; Carbonari, L.; Casella, F.; Celoria, G.; Chiama, A.; Chisci, E.; Civilini, E.; Codispoti, F.; Conti, B.; Coppi, G.; De Blasis, G.; D'Elia, M.; Di Domenico, R.; Di Girolamo, C.; Ercolini, L.; Ferrari, A.; Ferrari, M.; Forliti, E.; Frigatti, P.; Frigerio, D.; Frosini, P.; Garriboli, L.; Giordano, A. N.; Guerrieri, W.; Jannello, A.; Massara, M.; Merlo, M.; Mezzetti, R.; Miccoli, T.; Milite, D.; Mingazzini, P.; Muncinelli, M.; Nano, G.; Natola, M.; Novali, C.; Palasciano, G.; Perkmann, R.; Persi, F.; Petruccelli, D.; Pinelli, M.; Poletto, G.; Porta, C.; Pratesi, C.; Pruner, G.; Ragazzi, G.; Righini, P.; Salvini, M.; Scovazzi, P.; Setacci, C.; Settembrini, A. M.; Siani, A.; Silingardi, R.; Silvestro, A.; Talarico, F.; Tolva, V.; Trani, A.; Trimarchi, S.; Tshomba, Y.; Vigliotti, G.; Viola, D.; Volpe, P.; Zani, F.. - In: JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY. - ISSN 0741-5214. - 76:3(2022), pp. 797-805. [10.1016/j.jvs.2022.03.884]

Comparison of long occlusive femoropopliteal de novo versus previous endovascularly treated lesions managed with in situ saphenous bypass

Bartoli S.;Benedetto F.;Conti B.;Merlo M.;Mezzetti R.;Ragazzi G.;Silingardi R.;Silvestro A.;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the 2-year outcomes of de novo versus postendovascular lesion treatment of femoropopliteal occlusions included in a national, multicenter, observational, prospective registry based on the treatment of critical Limb-threatening IschaeMia with infragenicular Bypass adopting in situ SAphenous VEin technique (LIMBSAVE) registry. Methods: From January 2018 to December 2019, 541 patients from 43 centers have been enrolled in the LIMBSAVE registry. Of these patients, 460 were included in the present study: 341 (74.1%) with de novo lesions (DN group) and 119 (25.9%) with postendovascular treatment lesions (PE group). Initial outcome measures were assessed at 30 days after treatment. Furthermore, at the 2-year follow-up, the estimated outcomes of primary patency, primary-assisted patency, secondary patency, and limb salvage were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and compared between groups with the log-rank test. Results: Both groups were homogeneous in terms of demographic data, preoperative risk factors, and clinical presentation. However, compared with DN group, more patients in PE group had a great saphenous vein diameter of less than 3 mm (11.1% vs 21%; P = .007). Intraoperatively, both groups showed similar distal anastomosis sites: below-the-knee popliteal artery (63% DN group, 66.4% PE group) and tibial vessel (37% DN group, 33.6% PE group) (P = .3). The overall mean duration of follow-up was 11.6 months (range, 1-24 months). At the 2-year follow-up, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of primary patency (66.3% DN group vs 74.1% PE group; P = .9), primary-assisted patency (78.2% DN group vs 79.5% PE group; P = .2), secondary patency (85.1% DN group vs 91.4% PE group; P = .2), and limb salvage (95.2% DN group vs 95.1% PE group; P = .9). Conclusions: The LIMBSAVE registry did not show a worsening of overall patency and limb salvages rates at the 2-year follow-up in patients undergoing in situ saphenous bypass after a failed endovascular approach for long femoropopliteal occlusive disease. This finding is in contrast with what has been published in literature.
76
3
797
805
Comparison of long occlusive femoropopliteal de novo versus previous endovascularly treated lesions managed with in situ saphenous bypass / Troisi, N.; Michelagnoli, S.; Adami, D.; Berchiolli, R.; Accrocca, F.; Amico, A.; Angelini, A.; Arnuzzo, L.; Marchetti, A. A.; Attisani, L.; Bafile, G.; Baldino, G.; Barbanti, E.; Bartoli, S.; Bellosta, R.; Benedetto, F.; Borioni, R.; Briolini, F.; Busoni, C.; Camparini, S.; Cappiello, P.; Carbonari, L.; Casella, F.; Celoria, G.; Chiama, A.; Chisci, E.; Civilini, E.; Codispoti, F.; Conti, B.; Coppi, G.; De Blasis, G.; D'Elia, M.; Di Domenico, R.; Di Girolamo, C.; Ercolini, L.; Ferrari, A.; Ferrari, M.; Forliti, E.; Frigatti, P.; Frigerio, D.; Frosini, P.; Garriboli, L.; Giordano, A. N.; Guerrieri, W.; Jannello, A.; Massara, M.; Merlo, M.; Mezzetti, R.; Miccoli, T.; Milite, D.; Mingazzini, P.; Muncinelli, M.; Nano, G.; Natola, M.; Novali, C.; Palasciano, G.; Perkmann, R.; Persi, F.; Petruccelli, D.; Pinelli, M.; Poletto, G.; Porta, C.; Pratesi, C.; Pruner, G.; Ragazzi, G.; Righini, P.; Salvini, M.; Scovazzi, P.; Setacci, C.; Settembrini, A. M.; Siani, A.; Silingardi, R.; Silvestro, A.; Talarico, F.; Tolva, V.; Trani, A.; Trimarchi, S.; Tshomba, Y.; Vigliotti, G.; Viola, D.; Volpe, P.; Zani, F.. - In: JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY. - ISSN 0741-5214. - 76:3(2022), pp. 797-805. [10.1016/j.jvs.2022.03.884]
Troisi, N.; Michelagnoli, S.; Adami, D.; Berchiolli, R.; Accrocca, F.; Amico, A.; Angelini, A.; Arnuzzo, L.; Marchetti, A. A.; Attisani, L.; Bafile, G.; Baldino, G.; Barbanti, E.; Bartoli, S.; Bellosta, R.; Benedetto, F.; Borioni, R.; Briolini, F.; Busoni, C.; Camparini, S.; Cappiello, P.; Carbonari, L.; Casella, F.; Celoria, G.; Chiama, A.; Chisci, E.; Civilini, E.; Codispoti, F.; Conti, B.; Coppi, G.; De Blasis, G.; D'Elia, M.; Di Domenico, R.; Di Girolamo, C.; Ercolini, L.; Ferrari, A.; Ferrari, M.; Forliti, E.; Frigatti, P.; Frigerio, D.; Frosini, P.; Garriboli, L.; Giordano, A. N.; Guerrieri, W.; Jannello, A.; Massara, M.; Merlo, M.; Mezzetti, R.; Miccoli, T.; Milite, D.; Mingazzini, P.; Muncinelli, M.; Nano, G.; Natola, M.; Novali, C.; Palasciano, G.; Perkmann, R.; Persi, F.; Petruccelli, D.; Pinelli, M.; Poletto, G.; Porta, C.; Pratesi, C.; Pruner, G.; Ragazzi, G.; Righini, P.; Salvini, M.; Scovazzi, P.; Setacci, C.; Settembrini, A. M.; Siani, A.; Silingardi, R.; Silvestro, A.; Talarico, F.; Tolva, V.; Trani, A.; Trimarchi, S.; Tshomba, Y.; Vigliotti, G.; Viola, D.; Volpe, P.; Zani, F.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1285790
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact