Clinical efficacy of concomitant tibial interventions associated with superficial femoral artery interventions in critical limb ischemia

Christopher J. Smolock, Javier E. Anaya-Ayala, Hosam F. El-Sayed, Joseph J. Naoum, Alan B. Lumsden, Mark G. Davies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations


Background: Combined superficial femoral artery (SFA) and tibial angioplasty (TA) are a common treatment for critical limb ischemia. Poor tibial runoff significantly compromises durability and clinical effectiveness of SFA interventions. The aim of this study is to determine clinical and anatomic outcomes of SFA interventions in patients with equally compromised runoff, with and without concomitant TA. Methods: The database of patients undergoing endovascular treatment of SFA (1999-2009) was retrospectively queried. Patients with poor runoff, scored >10 by modified Society for Vascular Surgery criteria, were selected. Preoperative angiograms were reviewed to assess distal popliteal and tibial runoff. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess time-dependent outcomes. Factor analyses were performed for time-dependent variables. Results: A total of 162 limbs with a runoff score >10 (56% men; average age, 69 years) underwent endovascular intervention for symptomatic SFA disease: 61 (54% men) underwent TA but the remaining 101 (57% men) did not. The groups were matched for age, sex, and SFA anatomy (Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II C/D lesions: 56% no TA vs 62% TA; P =.5). Presenting symptoms were similar between no TA and TA groups (rest pain: 40% vs 32%; tissue loss: 60% vs 68%; P =.3). Three-year survival favored the TA group (79% ± 5%) vs no TA (68% ± 5%; P =.06). Three-year anatomic outcomes in no TA vs TA group, including primary patency (45% ± 6% vs 63% ± 8%; P =.04), assisted primary patency (55% ± 6% vs 75% ± 7%; P =.03), and secondary patency (57% ± 6% vs 77% ± 7%; P =.03) were all superior in the TA group. Target vessel revascularization in no TA vs TA (61% ± 6% vs 74% ± 8%; P =.002) and target extremity revascularization (42% ± 6% vs 59% ± 8%; P =.06) also favored the TA group. However the comparison of no TA vs TA for clinical success (39% ± 6% vs 47% ± 8%; P =.6), freedom from recurrent symptoms (59% ± 6%vs 60% ± 9%; P =.1), amputation-free survival (46% ± 5% vs 63% ± 7%; P =.06), and limb salvage at 3 years (63% ± 6% vs 74% ± 7%; P =.6) were similar. Conclusions: TA in patients with poor runoff has a positive effect on SFA anatomic outcomes. However, clinical success was not affected. Concomitant TA appears not to add clinical benefit to SFA intervention in critical limb ischemia.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)19-27
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2013

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical efficacy of concomitant tibial interventions associated with superficial femoral artery interventions in critical limb ischemia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this