Prior contralateral amputation predicts worse outcomes for lower extremity bypasses performed in the intact limb
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Authors
Baril, Donald T.Goodney, Philip P.
Robinson, William P. III
Nolan, Brian W.
Stone, David H.
Li, YouFu
Cronenwett, Jack L.
Schanzer, Andres
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of SurgeryDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2012-08-01Keywords
AmputationIschemia
Lower Extremity
Vascular Surgical Procedures
Graft Occlusion, Vascular
Surgery
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
INTRODUCTION: To date, history of a contralateral amputation as a potential predictor of outcomes after lower extremity bypass (LEB) for critical limb ischemia (CLI) has not been studied. We sought to determine if a prior contralateral lower extremity amputation predicts worse outcomes in patients undergoing LEB in the remaining intact limb. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing infrainguinal LEB for CLI between 2003 and 2010 within hospitals comprising the Vascular Study Group of New England was performed. Patients were stratified according to whether or not they had previously undergone a contralateral major or minor amputation before LEB. Primary end points included major amputation and graft occlusion at 1 year postoperatively. Secondary end points included in-hospital major adverse events, discharge status, and mortality at 1 year. RESULTS: Of 2636 LEB procedures, 228 (8.6%) were performed in the setting of a prior contralateral amputation. Patients with a prior amputation compared to those without were younger (66.5 vs 68.7; P = .034), more like to have congestive heart failure (CHF; 25% vs 16%; P = .002), hypertension (94% vs 85%; P = .015), renal insufficiency (26% vs 14%; P = .0002), and hemodialysis-dependent renal failure (14% vs 6%; P = .0002). They were also more likely to be nursing home residents (8.0% vs 3.6%; P = .036), less likely to ambulate without assistance (41% vs 80%; P < .0002), and more likely to have had a prior ipsilateral bypass (20% vs 12%; P = .0005). These patients experience increased in-hospital major adverse events, including myocardial infarction (MI; 8.9% vs 4.2%; P = .002), CHF (6.1% vs 3.4%; P = .044), deterioration in renal function (9.0% vs 4.7%; P = .006), and respiratory complications (4.2% vs 2.3%; P = .034). They were less likely to be discharged home (52% vs 72%; P < .0001) and less likely to be ambulatory on discharge (25% vs 55%; P < .0001). Although patients with a prior contralateral amputation experienced increased rates of graft occlusion (38% vs 17%; P < .0001) and major amputation (16% vs 7%; P < .0001) at 1 year, there was not a significant difference in mortality (16% vs 10%; P = .160). On multivariable analysis, prior contralateral amputation was an independent predictor of both major amputation (odds ratio, 1.73; confidence interval, 1.06-2.83; P = .027) and graft occlusion (odds ratio, 1.93; confidence interval, 1.39-2.68; P < .0001) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prior contralateral amputations who present with CLI in the intact limb represent a high-risk population, even among patients with advanced peripheral arterial disease. When considering LEB in this setting, both physicians and patients should expect increased rates of perioperative adverse events, increased rates of 1-year graft occlusion, and decreased rates of limb salvage, when compared with patients who have not undergone a contralateral amputation. rights reserved.Source
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Aug;56(2):353-60. Epub 2012 Apr 4. Link to article on publisher's site
DOI
10.1016/j.jvs.2012.01.041Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/49685PubMed ID
22480762Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.jvs.2012.01.041