|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Tibial interventions for critical limb ischemia are now commonplace. Restenosis and occlusion remain barriers to durability after intervention. The aim of this study was to examine the patient-centered outcomes of open and endovascular reintervention for symptomatic recurrent disease after a primary isolated tibial endovascular intervention.A database of patients undergoing isolated primary lower extremity tibial endovascular interventions between 2006 and 2016 was retrospectively queried. Patients with recurrent critical ischemia (Rutherford 4 and 5) were identified. Outcomes in this cohort were analyzed, and three groups were defined: endovascular reintervention (ie, a repeated tibial or pedal endovascular intervention), bypass (bypass to a tibial or pedal vessel), and primary amputation (ie, above- or below-knee amputation) on the ipsilateral leg. Patient-oriented outcomes of clinical efficacy (absence of recurrent signs or symptoms of critical ischemia, maintenance of ambulation, and absence of major amputation), amputation-free survival (survival without major amputation), and freedom from major adverse limb events (above-ankle amputation of the index limb or major reintervention, such as new bypass graft or jump or interposition graft revision) were evaluated after the reintervention.There were 1134 patients (56% male; average age, 59 years) who underwent primary tibial intervention for critical ischemia, and 54% presented with symptomatic restenosis and occlusion. Of the 513 patients with recurrent disease, 58% presented with rest pain and the remainder with ulceration. A repeated tibial endovascular intervention was performed in 64%, open bypass in 19%, and below-knee amputation in 17%. Bypass was employed in patients with a good target vessel, venous conduit, and good pedal runoff. Patient-centered outcomes were better in the bypass group compared with the reintervention group (amputation-free survival, 45% ± 9% vs 27% ± 9% [P < .01]; major adverse limb events, 50% ± 9% vs 31% ± 9% [P < .05]; clinical efficacy, 60% ± 7% vs 30% ± 9% [P < .01], mean ± standard error of the mean at 5 years).Tibial interventions for critical ischemia are associated with a high rate of reintervention. In patients with good target vessel, venous conduit, and good pedal runoff, bypass appears more durable than repeated tibial endovascular intervention.