Percutaneous Superficial Femoral Artery Interventions for Claudication-Does Runoff Matter?

Mark G. Davies, Wael E. Saad, Eric K. Peden, Imran T. Mohiuddin, Joseph J. Naoum, Alan B. Lumsden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

48 Scopus citations


Endoluminal therapy for superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusive disease for claudication is commonplace, but the implications of tibial vessel runoff on long-term outcomes of these interventions in patients with claudication are unclear. Runoff is known to negatively affect graft patency, but no data are available on the impact of runoff on percutaneous SFA interventions and their implications during follow-up. We examined the impact of distal popliteal and tibial runoff on long-term outcomes of SFA interventions for claudication. A prospective database of patients undergoing endovascular treatment of the SFA between 1986 and 2007 was queried. Patients with Rutherford symptom classifications 1, 2, and 3 were selected; those with concomitant tibial interventions were excluded. Angiograms were reviewed preoperatively in all cases to assess distal popliteal and tibial runoff and scored according to modified Society for Vascular Surgery criteria for both vessels such that a higher score implies worse runoff (minimum 1, maximum 19). Three run-off score groups were identified: <5 (good), 5-10 (compromised), and >10 (poor). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed to assess time-dependent outcomes. Multivariate and factor analyses were performed. There were 481 limbs in 347 patients (70% male, average age 66 years) that underwent endovascular SFA treatment for claudication: 87% had hypertension, 51% had diabetes mellitus, 67% had hyperlipidemia, and 16% had chronic renal insufficiency (1% on hemodialysis). Technical success was 92%, with 63% SFA undergoing angioplasty, 26% SFA undergoing primary stenting, and 3% SFA undergoing atherectomy. Overall mortality was 1.1% and overall morbidity was 17% at 90 days after the procedure. At 5 years, vessels with compromised and poor runoff had significantly lower freedom from recurrent symptoms and lower freedom from restenosis. Primary and assisted primary patency rates were significantly worse in patients with poor runoff. However, secondary patency was equivalent between the groups. Compromised or poor runoff was associated with incremental lower limb salvage. Following SFA percutaneous interventions for claudication, runoff can identify patients more likely to develop restenosis and recurrent symptoms and, more importantly, those at higher risk of limb loss. Defining such subgroups allows a clear risk stratification of patients with claudication and can guide the intensity of surveillance in the outpatient setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)790-798
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of Vascular Surgery
Issue number6
StatePublished - Nov 2008

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Percutaneous Superficial Femoral Artery Interventions for Claudication-Does Runoff Matter?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this