Safety and Effectiveness of Debulking for the Treatment of Infrainguinal Peripheral Artery Disease. Data From the Recording Courses of vascular Diseases Registry in 2910 Patients.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Angiology Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-21 DOI:10.1177/00033197241263381
Grigorios Korosoglou, Jannik Feld, Ralf Langhoff, Michael Lichtenberg, Jürgen Stausberg, Ulrich Hoffmann, Christos Rammos, Nasser Malyar
{"title":"Safety and Effectiveness of Debulking for the Treatment of Infrainguinal Peripheral Artery Disease. Data From the Recording Courses of vascular Diseases Registry in 2910 Patients.","authors":"Grigorios Korosoglou, Jannik Feld, Ralf Langhoff, Michael Lichtenberg, Jürgen Stausberg, Ulrich Hoffmann, Christos Rammos, Nasser Malyar","doi":"10.1177/00033197241263381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We investigated the safety and efficacy of debulking infrainguinal lesions in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing endovascular revascularization (EVR) as part of the RECording Courses of vascular Diseases (RECCORD) registry. Patient and lesion specific characteristics, including the lesion complexity score (LCS) were analyzed. The primary endpoint encompassed: (i) clinical improvement in Rutherford categories, (ii) index limb re-interventions, and (iii) major amputations during follow-up. The secondary endpoint included the need for bail-out stenting. Overall, 2910 patients were analyzed; 2552 without and 358 with debulking-assisted EVR. Patients were 72 (interquartile range (IQR) = 15) years old and 1027 (35.3%) had diabetes. Overall complication rates were similarly low in the debulking vs the non-debulking group (4.7 vs 3.2%, <i>P</i> = .18). However, peripheral embolizations rates were low but more frequent with debulking vs. non-debulking procedures (3.9 vs 1.1%, <i>P</i> < .001). After adjustment for clinical and lesion-specific parameters, including LCS, no differences were noted for the primary endpoint (odds ration (OR) = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.69-1.41, <i>P</i> = .94). Bail-out stenting was less frequently performed in patients with debulking-assisted EVR (OR = 0.5, 95%CI = 0.38-0.65, <i>P</i> < .0001). Debulking-assisted EVR is currently used in ∼12% of EVR with infrainguinal lesions and is associated with lower bail-out stent rates but higher peripheral embolization rates; no differences were found regarding index limb re-intervention and amputation rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":8264,"journal":{"name":"Angiology","volume":" ","pages":"981-990"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00033197241263381","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We investigated the safety and efficacy of debulking infrainguinal lesions in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing endovascular revascularization (EVR) as part of the RECording Courses of vascular Diseases (RECCORD) registry. Patient and lesion specific characteristics, including the lesion complexity score (LCS) were analyzed. The primary endpoint encompassed: (i) clinical improvement in Rutherford categories, (ii) index limb re-interventions, and (iii) major amputations during follow-up. The secondary endpoint included the need for bail-out stenting. Overall, 2910 patients were analyzed; 2552 without and 358 with debulking-assisted EVR. Patients were 72 (interquartile range (IQR) = 15) years old and 1027 (35.3%) had diabetes. Overall complication rates were similarly low in the debulking vs the non-debulking group (4.7 vs 3.2%, P = .18). However, peripheral embolizations rates were low but more frequent with debulking vs. non-debulking procedures (3.9 vs 1.1%, P < .001). After adjustment for clinical and lesion-specific parameters, including LCS, no differences were noted for the primary endpoint (odds ration (OR) = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.69-1.41, P = .94). Bail-out stenting was less frequently performed in patients with debulking-assisted EVR (OR = 0.5, 95%CI = 0.38-0.65, P < .0001). Debulking-assisted EVR is currently used in ∼12% of EVR with infrainguinal lesions and is associated with lower bail-out stent rates but higher peripheral embolization rates; no differences were found regarding index limb re-intervention and amputation rates.

切除治疗腹股沟周围动脉疾病的安全性和有效性。来自血管疾病病程记录登记处 2910 名患者的数据。
作为血管疾病病程记录(RECCORD)登记项目的一部分,我们对接受血管内血运重建(EVR)治疗的外周动脉疾病(PAD)患者腹股沟下病变剥脱的安全性和有效性进行了研究。研究分析了患者和病变的具体特征,包括病变复杂性评分(LCS)。主要终点包括:(i) 在卢瑟福分类中的临床改善,(ii) 指征肢体的再次介入,(iii) 随访期间的主要截肢情况。次要终点包括是否需要保外支架。共对 2910 名患者进行了分析,其中 2552 名患者未进行去骨刺辅助 EVR,358 名患者进行了去骨刺辅助 EVR。患者年龄为72岁(四分位距(IQR)= 15),1027人(35.3%)患有糖尿病。清创组和非清创组的总体并发症发生率同样较低(4.7% vs 3.2%,P = .18)。然而,外周栓塞发生率较低,但去骨瓣手术与非去骨瓣手术相比发生率更高(3.9 vs 1.1%,P < .001)。对临床和病变特异性参数(包括 LCS)进行调整后,主要终点无差异(几率 (OR) = 0.99,95%CI = 0.69-1.41,P = .94)。使用去纤颤辅助EVR的患者较少进行保外支架植入术(OR = 0.5,95%CI = 0.38-0.65,P < .0001)。目前,在腹股沟下病变的EVR中,有12%的患者采用了去纤颤辅助EVR,其保送支架率较低,但外周栓塞率较高;在索引肢体再次介入和截肢率方面没有发现差异。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Angiology
Angiology 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: A presentation of original, peer-reviewed original articles, review and case reports relative to all phases of all vascular diseases, Angiology (ANG) offers more than a typical cardiology journal. With approximately 1000 pages per year covering diagnostic methods, therapeutic approaches, and clinical and laboratory research, ANG is among the most informative publications in the field of peripheral vascular and cardiovascular diseases. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 13 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信