Healing of Diabetic Neuroischemic Foot Wounds With vs Without Wound-Targeted Revascularization: Preliminary Observations From an 8-Year Prospective Dual-Center Registry
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2020
Healing of Diabetic Neuroischemic Foot Wounds With vs Without Wound-Targeted Revascularization: Preliminary Observations From an 8-Year Prospective Dual-Center Registry
Purpose: To assess the clinical efficacy of endovascular angiosome-oriented wound-targeted revascularization (WTR) vs indirect (wound-indifferent) revascularization (IR) in diabetic patients with neuroischemic foot ulcers. Materials and Methods: Between April 2009 and July 2017, 167 diabetic patients (mean age 72.8 years; 137 men) with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (Rutherford category 5) and foot wounds (Wagner 2–4) in 194 limbs were prospectively registered and scheduled for primary infragenicular endovascular treatment. Specific angiosome source artery reperfusion sustained by patent foot arches or arterial-arterial connections was attempted initially. If this approach failed, topographic revascularization via available collaterals (WTRc) and IR were sequentially attempted. Results: Reperfusion was successful in 176 (91%) of 194 limbs (113 with WTR, 28 with WTRc, and 35 with IR); the global angiosome-oriented technical success (WTR and WTRc) was 73% (141/194). The mean follow-up was 10.9±0.7 months (range 3–12.5). Over 1 year, 102 (58%) of the 176 successfully treated limbs experienced wound healing [79/113 (70%) in the WTR group, 15/28 (54%) in the WTRc group, and 7/35 (20%) in the IR group; p=0.011]. The mean time to healing was 6.8±0.4 months in the WTR group, 7.9±0.6 months in the WTRc group, and 9.8±0.7 months in the IR group (p=0.001). Relapses were noted in 18 (16%) WTR limbs, 5 (18%) WTRc limbs, and 6 (17%) IR limbs. Comparison between WTR and IR and WTRc vs IR showed improved cicatrization in the angiosome-oriented groups (p<0.05). Major adverse limb events (MALE) and limb salvage were different between WTR and WTRc and between WTR and IR groups (p<0.05), while WTRc vs IR was not. Amputation-free survival was not influenced by the revascularization strategy (p=0.093). Conclusion: Wound healing in diabetic patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia appeared to be improved by intentional wound-targeted revascularization, but no uniform benefit concerning MALE or limb preservation was observed. IR still represents an alternative for limb salvage in cases in which angiosome-guided revascularization fails.
BiancariFJuvonenT.Angiosome-targeted lower limb revascularization for ischemic foot wounds: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47:517–522.
2.
BosanquetDCGlasbeyJCWilliamsIM, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of direct versus indirect angiosomal revascularization of infrapopliteal arteries. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48:88–97.
3.
AlexandrescuVA.Commentary: Myths and proofs of angiosome applications in CLI: where do we stand?J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21:616–624.
4.
AttingerCEEvansKKBulanE, et al. Angiosomes of the foot and ankle and clinical implications for limb salvage: reconstruction, incisions, and revascularization. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7 suppl):261S–293S.
5.
ZhengXTZengRCHuangJY, et al. The use of the angiosome concept for treating infrapopliteal critical limb ischemia through interventional therapy and determining the clinical significance of collateral vessels. Ann Vasc Surg. 2016;32:41–49.
6.
VarelaCAcinNFde HaroJD, et al. The role of foot collateral vessels on ulcer healing and limb salvage after successful endovascular and surgical distal procedures according to an angiosome model. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2010;44:654–660.
7.
TaylorGIPalmerJH.The vascular territories (angiosomes) of the body: experimental study and clinical applications. Br J Plast Surg. 1987;40:113–141.
8.
AlexandrescuVADefraigneJO. Chapter 77: Angiosome system and principle. In LanzerP. Textbook of Catheter-Based Cardiovascular Interventions. Berlin, Germany: Springer Nature. 2018:1344–1358.
9.
NdipAJudeEB.Emerging evidence for neuroischemic diabetic foot ulcers: model of care and how to adapt practice. Int J Low Ext Wounds. 2009;8:82–94.
10.
AlexandrescuVAHubermontG.Does peripheral neuropathy have a clinical impact on the endovascular approach as a primary treatment for limb-threatening ischemic foot wounds in diabetic patients?J Diabetes Metab. 2012;S5:006.
11.
NorgrenLHiattWRDormandyJA, et al. Inter-Society Consensus for the management of peripheral arterial disease (TASC II). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;33(suppl 1):S1–S75.
12.
TASC Steering Committee, JaffMRWhiteCJ, et al. An update on methods for revascularization and expansion of the TASC lesion classification to include below-the-knee arteries: a supplement to the Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II). J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22:663–677.
13.
WagnerFWJr.The dysvascular foot: a system for diagnosis and treatment. Foot Ankle. 1981;2:64–122.
14.
ArmstrongDGLaveryLAHarklessLB.Validation of a diabetic wound classification system. The contribution of depth, infection, and ischemia to risk of amputation. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:855–859.
15.
HingoraniALaMuragliaGMHenkeP, et al. The management of the diabetic foot: a clinical practice guideline by the Society for Vascular Surgery in collaboration with the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Society for Vascular Medicine. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63(2 suppl):3S–21S.
16.
AlexandrescuVVincentGAzdadK, et al. A reliable approach to diabetic neuroischemic foot wounds: below-the-knee angiosome-oriented angioplasty. J Endovasc Ther. 2011;18:376–387.
17.
AlexandrescuVATriffauxF. Ischemic ulcer healing: does appropriate flow reconstruction stand for all that we need? In: AlexandrescuVA, ed. Wound Healing: New Insights Into Ancient Challenges. London, England: InTech. 2016:251–282.
18.
RutherfordRBBakerJDErnstC, et al. Recommended standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia: revised version. J Vasc Surg. 1997;26:517–538.
19.
VallabhaneniRKalbaughCAKouriA, et al. Current accepted hemodynamic criteria for critical limb ischemia do not accurately stratify patients at high risk for limb loss. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63:105–113.
20.
HirschATHaskalZJHertzerNR, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): executive summary. Circulation. 2006;113:e463–e654.
21.
IidaONantoSUematsuM, et al. Importance of the angiosome concept for endovascular therapy in patients with critical limb ischemia. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:830–836.
22.
NevilleRFAttingerCEBulanEJ, et al. Revascularization of a specific angiosome for limb salvage: does the target artery matter?Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23:367–373.
23.
KabraASureshKRVivekanandV, et al. Outcome of angiosome and non-angiosome targeted revascularization in critical lower limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57:44–49.
24.
LoZJLinZPuaU, et al. Diabetic foot limb salvage- a series of 809 attempts and predictors for endovascular limb salvage failure. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;49:9–16.
25.
FagliaEClericiGCaminitiM, et al. Heel ulcer and blood flow: the importance of the angiosome concept. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2013;12:226–230.
26.
ElbadawyAAliHSalemM, et al. A prospective study to evaluate complete wound healing and limb salvage rates after angiosome targeted infrapopliteal balloon angioplasty in patients with critical limb ischaemia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;55:392–397.
27.
RiccoJBGargiuloMStellaA, et al. Impact of angiosome- and nonangiosome-targeted peroneal bypass on limb salvage and Healing in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:1479–1487.
28.
OsawaSTerashiHTsujiY, et al. Importance of the six angiosomes concept through arterial-arterial connections in CLI. Int Angiol. 2013;32:375–385.
29.
KretMRChengDAzarbalAF, et al. Utility of direct angiosome revascularization and runoff scores in predicting outcomes in patients undergoing revascularization for critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59:121–128.
30.
RashidHSlimHZayedH, et al. The impact of arterial pedal arch quality and angiosome revascularization on foot tissue loss healing and infrapopliteal bypass outcome. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57:1219–1226.
31.
TroisiNTuriniFChisciE, et al. Pedal arch patency and not direct-angiosome revascularization predicts outcomes of endovascular interventions in diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia. Int Angiol. 2017;5:438–444.
32.
DeguchiJKitaokaTYamamotoK, et al. Impact of angiosome on treatment of diabetic foot with paramalleolar bypass. J Jpn Coll Angiol. 2010;50:687–691.
33.
O’NealLW. Surgical pathology of the foot and clinicopathologic correlations. In: BowkerJHPfeiferMA. Levin and O’Neal’s The Diabetic Foot. 7th ed.Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier; 2007:367–401.
34.
AlexandrescuVA.Contributions of the Angiosome Concept in the Management of the Ischemic Diabetic Foot [dissertation]. Liège, Belgium: University of Liège; 2018.
35.
DilaverNTwineCPBosanquetDC.Direct vs indirect angiosomal revascularization of infrapopliteal arteries, an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56:834–848.
36.
KhorBYCPriceP.The comparative efficacy of angiosome-directed and indirect revascularisation strategies to aid healing of chronic foot wounds in patients with co-morbid diabetes mellitus and critical limb ischaemia: a literature review. J Foot Ankle Res. 2017;10:26.
37.
JeonEYChoYKYoonDY, et al. Clinical outcome of angiosome-oriented infrapopliteal percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for isolated infrapopliteal lesions in patients with critical limb ischemia. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2016;22:52–58.
38.
WaltenbergJ.Impaired collateral vessel development in diabetes: potential cellular mechanisms and therapeutic implications. Cardiovasc Res. 2001;49:554–560.
39.
StimpsonALDilaverNBosanquetDS, et al. Angiosome specific revascularization: does the evidence support it?Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57:311–317.
40.
JörneskogG.Why critical limb ischemia criteria are not applicable to diabetic foot and what the consequences are. J Scan Surg. 2012;101:114–118.
41.
JongsmaHBekkenJAAkkersdijkGP, et al. Angiosome-directed revascularization in patients with critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2017;65:1208–1219.
42.
SchaperW.Collateral circulation, past and present. Basic Res Cardiol. 2009;104:5–21.
43.
ScholzDZiegelhoefferTHelischA, et al. Contribution of arteriogenesis and angiogenesis to postocclusive hind limb perfusion. J Moll Cell Cardiol. 2002;34:775–787.
44.
TaylorGICorlettRJShymalCD, et al. The anatomical (angiosome) and clinical territories of cutaneous perforating arteries: development of the concept and designing safe flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1447–1459.
45.
SummersDS.Hemodynamics and rheology of vascular disease: applications to diagnosis and treatment. In: AscerEHollierLHStrandnessDJr, et al. Haimovici’s Vascular Surgery, Principles and Techniques. 4th ed.London, England: Blackwell Science; 1996;104–124.
46.
SpillerovaKBiancariFSettembreN, et al. The prognostic significance of different definitions for angiosome-targeted lower limb revascularization. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;40:183–189.
47.
DiehmN.Commentary: Intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography: what you see is not always what you get. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22:252–253.
