No abstract

Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is characterized by multilevel disease, high burden of comorbidity, and limited life span. The care of patients with CLI is not straightforward because many of them have significant comorbidities including renal disease and advanced age. Successful revascularization decreases the major amputation rate in patients with CLI. The efficacy of peripheral bypass grafts and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in accomplishing limb salvage has been recognized. 2On the contrary, in recent publications, hesitation is still expressed regarding the feasibility, effectiveness, and longterm results of PTA, mainly in the treatment of infrapopliteal disease and CLI.In our protocol for the treatment of all patients with TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) criteria of CLI, PTA is the first choice revascularization procedure. This study aims at the assessment of the achievability of the endovascular treatment of patients with CLI and the role of bypass in AbstractThis study aims at the assessment of the achievability of the endovascular treatment of patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) and the role of bypass in such patient. This is a prospective study conducted on patients with chronic atherosclerotic critical lower limb ischemia presenting to us over a period of 3 years. Patients presenting with nonsalvageable limbs requiring primary major amputation and nonatherosclerotic causes of CLI were excluded. Endovascular treatment was the first choice modality of treatment in revascularization of all patients. Open surgery was offered selectively for patient whom endovascular failed or complicated and for long TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II lesions in fit patients. This study included 511 cases of CLI, and the mean age was 64.5 years. Patients with Rutherford IV, V, and VI were 19.25, 60.5, and 19.25%, respectively. The TASC II aortoiliac lesions were as follows: A, B, C, and D in 33.7, 12,15.7, and 38.6%, respectively, and infrainguinal lesions were A, B, C, and D in 3.7, 19, 35.4, and 68.3%, respectively. A total of 78.3% of patients were treated by endovascular totally, while 16% were treated by surgery from the start, 3.7% of endovascular cases were converted to open surgery after failure of endovascular treatment, and 2% was offered hybrid treatment. Crossing of lesions by subintimal and intraluminal was 12.5 and 87.5%, respectively. Technical success in endovascular was 94%; however, we could successfully revascularize 96.8% of all CLI presented in this study by either surgery or endovascular. On 24 months follow-up, primary patency, secondary patency, and limb salvage by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty are 77.8, 84.7, and 90.7%, respectively. Revascularization by endovascular achieves high technical success and limb salvage in CLI, hence should be considered as preferred choice of treatment. However, both endovascular and surgery should not be counteracting each other and using both can revascularize 96.6% of CLI.

AimComparison between intraluminal and subintimal angioplasty with review of technique, factors affecting the success and complications with special emphasis on factors that could predict the wire route meanwhile using simple techniques. MethodsThis is a non-randomized study with prospectively collected data that included 159 patients presented from 2011 to 2014 to the vascular surgery department with critical chronic lower limb ischemia due to atherosclerotic femoropopliteal occlusive disease for whom percutaneous angioplasty was done. Patients presenting with nonsalvageable limbs requiring primary major amputation and non-atherosclerotic causes of CLI were excluded. Results 75.5% of the lesionswere crossed transluminally while 19.5% of the lesions were crossed subintimally. In 8 cases (5%) the lesion could not be passed. The overall technical success to pass the lesion was 95%. On 24 months follow up, 1ry patency, 2ry patency, limb salvage in intraluminal group are 56.8%, 60.2% and 66.1% respectively while in subintimal group 46.7%, 46.7% and 60% respectively. Subintimal was more in the TASC D, lesion more than 10 cm and in contralateral access (P value was<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between intraluminal and subintimal angioplasty regarding the outcome (Patency and limb salvage). ConclusionsThe passage of the wire is affected by length of the lesion, the TASC II classification of the lesion and access site with the subintimal passage was more in Lesion more than 10 cm, TASC D lesions and in contralateral access. These factors can be used prospectively as predictors for passage of the wire whether intraluminal or subintimal. In spite of the technical differences between the intraluminal and subintimal passage, yet they show no significant statistical differences regarding the outcome (patency and limb salvage). Hence both should be used as part of vascular armamentarium for revascularization in such frail patients.