Scoring Model to Predict Major Amputation in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia at Wound,Ischemia,and Foot Infection Clinical Stage 4 After Endovascular Therapy

Abstract

Purpose:

We investigated the predictors of major amputation (MA) at 1 year and prepared a scoring model to stratify the clinical outcomes of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients at wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI) clinical stage 4 after endovascular therapy (EVT).

Materials and Methods:

This study was a retrospective, observational study performed at a single center. A total of 353 CLTI patients (390 limbs) were treated with EVT between April 2007 and December 2016. Among these, limbs at WIfI clinical stages 1, 2, and 3 were excluded, and 194 limbs at WIfI clinical stage 4 (49.7%) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was major amputation (MA) free rate at 1 year. Predictors of MA at 1 year was evaluated by Cox proportional hazard analysis.

Results:

At 1 year, the incidence of MA was 18.0% (35 limbs). Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that hemodialysis (hazard ratio [HR] 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–5.58; p=0.012), fI3 (HR 2.54; 95% CI, 1.28–5.06; p=0.008), toe wounds (HR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.094–0.88; p=0.029), and visible blood flow to the wound (HR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21–0.89; p=0.023) were associated with MA. We assigned 1 point for positive predictors of MA, hemodialysis, and fI3; 1 point was deducted for negative predictors of MA, toe wounds, and visible blood flow to the wound. A score of −2 or −1, was defined as the low-risk group, 0 was defined as the intermediate-risk group, and +1 or +2 were defined as the high-risk group. At 1 year, MA free rate, wound healing rate, and amputation-free survival rate were stratified according to a scoring model. MA free rate was 96.6% in low-risk, 72.4% in intermediate-risk, and 67.3% in high-risk (p<0.001); wound healing rate was 67.8% in low-risk, 27.6% in intermediate-risk, and 4.1% in high-risk (p<0.001); amputation-free survival rate was 65.3% in low-risk, 44.8% in intermediate-risk, and 18.4% in high-risk (p<0.001).

Conclusions:

The scoring model based on the predictors of MA stratified clinical outcomes in CLTI patients at WIfI clinical stage 4.

Keywords

chronic limb-threatening ischemia endovascular therapy wound ischemia and foot infection classification major amputation wound healing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Criqui

Langer

Fronek

, et al. Mortality over a period of 10 years in patients with peripheral arterial disease. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:381–386.

Caro

Migliaccio-Walle

Ishak

, et al. The morbidity and mortality following a diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease: long-term follow-up of a large database. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2005;5:14.

Iida

Takahara

Soga

, et al. Three-year outcomes of surgical versus endovascular revascularization for critical limb ischemia: the SPINACH study (surgical reconstruction versus peripheral intervention in patients with critical limb ischemia). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(12):e005531.

Mills

Sr Conte

Armstrong

, et al. The society for vascular surgery lower extremity threatened limb classification system: risk stratification based on wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI). J Vasc Surg. 2014;59:220–234.e1–e2.

Bradbury

Adam

Bell

, et al. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial: an intention-to-treat analysis of amputation-free and overall survival in patients randomized to a bypass surgery-first or a balloon angioplasty-first revascularization strategy. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:5s–17s.

Iida

Nanto

Uematsu

, et al. Importance of the angiosome concept for endovascular therapy in patients with critical limb ischemia. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:830–836.

Kobayashi

Hirano

Nakano

, et al. Predictors of non-healing in patients with critical limb ischemia and tissue loss following successful endovascular therapy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85:850–858.

Margolis

Berlin

Strom

. Interobserver agreement, sensitivity, and specificity of a “healed” chronic wound. Wound Repair Regen. 1996;4(3):335–338.

Kawarada

Fujihara

Higashimori

, et al. Predictors of adverse clinical outcomes after successful infrapopliteal intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80:861–871.

10.

Meyer

Fiessler

Stavroulakis

, et al. Outcomes of dialysis patients with critical limb ischemia after revascularization compared with patients with normal renal function. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68:822–829.e1.

11.

Ramanan

Jeon-Slaughter

Chen

, et al. Comparison of open and endovascular procedures in patients with critical limb ischemia on dialysis. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70:1217–1224.

12.

Makino

Hirano

Kobayashi

, et al. Impact of infection severity on clinical outcomes in critical limb ischemia with tissue loss after endovascular treatment. Heart Vessels. 2019;34:84–94.

13.

Kobayashi

Hirano

Nakano

, et al. Clinical effect of wound depth in critical limb ischemia with tissue loss after endovascular treatment. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1564–1574.

14.

Kobayashi

Hirano

Nakano

, et al. Wound healing and wound location in critical limb ischemia following endovascular treatment. Circ J. 2014;78:1746–1753.

15.

Conte

Bradbury

Kolh

, et al. Global vascular guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;58:S1–S109.e33.

16.

Teichgraber

Lehmann

Thieme

, et al. Drug-coated balloon angioplasty of infrapopliteal lesions in patients with critical limb ischaemia: 1-year results of the APOLLO trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42:1380–1390.