No abstract

No abstract

Despite the widespread use of intraarterial thrombolytic therapy for peripheral arterial occlusive disease, a randomized study comparing its efficacy with that of operative intervention has never• been performed. This study evaluates the potential of intraarterial urokinase infusion to provide clinical benefits in patients with acute peripheral arterial occlusion. Methods: Patients with limb-threatening ischemia of less than 7 days' duration were randomly assigned to intraarterial catheter-directed urokinase therapy or operative intervention. Anatomic lesions unmasked by thrombolysis were treated with balloon dilation or operation. The primary end points of the study were limb salvage and survival.Results: A total of 57 patients were randomized to the thrombolytic therapy group, and 57 patients were randomized to the operative therapy group. Thrombolytic therapy resulted in dissolution of the occluding thrombus in 40 (70%) patients. Although the cumulative limb salvage rate was similar in the two treatment groups (82% at 12 months), the cumulative survival rate was significandy improved in patients randomized to the thrombolysis group (84% vs 58% at 12 months, p = 0.01). The mortality differences seemed to be primarily attributable to an increased frequency of in-hospital cardiopulmonary complications in the operative treatment group (49% vs 16%, P = 0.001). The benefits of thrombolysis were achieved without significant differences in the duration of hospitalization (median 11 days) and with only modest increases in hospital cost in the thrombolytic treatment arm (median $15,672 vs $12,253, P = 0.02).Conclusions: Intraarterial thrombolytic therapy was associated with a reduction in the incidence of in-hospital cardiopulmonary complications and a corresponding increase in patient survival rates. These benefits were achieved without an appreciable increase in the duration of hospitalization and with only modest increases in hospital cost, suggesting that thrombolytic therapy may offer a safe and effective alternative to operation in the initial treatment of patients diagnosed with acute limb-threatening peripheral arterial occlusion.

In response to the need for a disease severity measurement, the American Venous Forum committee on outcomes assessment developed the Venous Severity Scoring system in 2000. There are three components of this scoring system, the Venous Disability Score, the Venous Segmental Disease Score, and the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS). The VCSS was developed from elements of the CEAP classification (clinical grade, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology), which is the worldwide standard for describing the clinical features of chronic venous disease. However, as a descriptive instrument, the CEAP classification responds poorly to change. The VCSS was subsequently developed as an evaluative instrument that would be responsive to changes in disease severity over time and in response to treatment. Based on initial experiences with the VCSS, an international ad hoc working group of the American Venous Forum was charged with updating the instrument. This revision of the VCSS is focused on clarifying ambiguities, updating terminology, and simplifying application. The specific language of proven quality-of-life instruments was used to better address the issues of patients at the lower end of the venous disease spectrum. Periodic review and revision are necessary for generating more universal applicability and for comparing treatment outcomes in a meaningful way.

PTA and stenting of the SFA can be performed safely with excellent procedural success rates. Improved patency of these interventions was seen with increased ankle/brachial index and the performance of angioplasty only. Worse patency was seen with TASC C and TASC D lesions. Patency rates were strongly dependent on lesion type, and the results of angioplasty and stenting compared favorably with surgical bypass for TASC A and B lesions.