Home > Riviste > International Angiology > Fascicoli precedenti > Articles online first > International Angiology 2022 Jun 29



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo


Original Article   

International Angiology 2022 Jun 29

DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.22.04900-8


lingua: Inglese

Routinely ultrasound surveillance improves outcome after endovascular treatment of peripheral arterial disease. Propensity-matched comparisons of clinical outcomes after ultrasound or clinical-haemodynamic based surveillance programs

Carlos MARTÍNEZ-RICO 1, 2 , Xavier MARTÍ-MESTRE 1, 2, Dolors CERVELLERA-PÉREZ 1, Ricard RAMOS-IZQUIERDO 2, 3, Jonas EIBERG 4, Ramon VILA-COLL 1, 2

1 Department of Endovascular and Vascular Surgery, Bellvitge University Hospital, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; 2 Institut Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; 3 Department of Thoracic Surgery, Bellvitge University Hospital, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; 4 Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), Department of Vascular Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark


BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment (EVT) has replaced open repair as the first option in intermittent claudication (IC) and chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) in several centres. However, evidence of the most optimal post-procedural surveillance strategy is sparse. This study aimed to compare two routine surveillance programs after EVT of IC/CLTI: clinical and haemodynamic assessment (CHA) vs duplex ultrasound (DUS) and clinical/haemodynamic assessment in combination.
METHODS: Between February 2012 and December 2015, all patients with EVT of IC/CLTI were allocated to either CHA or DUS-based routine surveillance programs. The allocation-ratio was 1:2 (CHA:DUS), and propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control baseline differences between the groups. Follow-up visits in the CHA group consisted of clinical assessment and ABI at 3,6, 12 and 24 months. Follow-up visits in DUS group consisted of clinical assessment, ABI, and target vessel DUS at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.
RESULTS: In total, 340 legs in 305 patients suffering from IC/CLTI were included; 111 (33%) in the CHA-group and 229 (67%) in the DUS group. The two groups were identical except for a significantly lower incidence of diabetes mellitus in the CHA group than the DUS group, 55% vs 72%, respectively (p:.006). Based on PSM, the CHA-group vs the DUS-group was burdened of an increased risk of amputation (12.5% vs 8.27%, HR 0.41 (95% CI, 0.17-0.96)), and a higher mortality (21.2% vs 12.8%, HR 0.37 (95% CI, 0.19-0.72)). The reported differences in reintervention rate (7.5% vs 12.8%, HR 1.12 (95% CI, 0.44-2.84)) was insignificant. The mean follow-up was 317 days (SD: 214) in the CHA group and 611 days (SD: 298) in the DUS group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that DUS-based routine surveillance after EVT of IC/CLTI is superior to CHA-based routine surveillance in improved amputation rate and mortality.

KEY WORDS: Doppler ultrasound; Endovascular treatment; Peripheral arterial disease; Limb salvage

inizio pagina