Comparison of endovascular infrapopliteal revascularisation strategies based on the angiosome model in diabetics with CLTI

Summary: Background: Infrapopliteal endovascular interventions (EVT) strategies in diabetic patients are still in debate because the lesions are more likely to be diffuse with a different pattern of collateral arteries ranging from reduced to normal caliber. The aim of this all-comers study was to analyse the outcome of two different infrapopliteal EVT strategies (Group I: angiosome-based direct revascularization – DR vs. Group II: complete (direct + indirect) revascularization strategy – CR) in diabetic patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in 2 time-periods. Furthermore we analysed the outcome if DR or CR failed and only indirect revascularization (IR) or no revascularization was possible. Both groups were differentiated in patients with collaterals, defined as an intact pedal arch (immediate or after pedal PTA). Patients and methods: The database includes 91 consecutive EVT with two intrapopliteal interventional strategies performed in 68 diabetic patients (pts. 24 female, 44 male, mean age 73±10 years) between 2013–2016 and 2017–2022. Positive clinical outcome was defined as wound healing with or w/o minor amputation, combined with a symptom improvement to Rutherford category 0 or 1 after 6 months. The clinical outcome proportions were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. Results: Successful DR (59%) and successful CR (47%) strategy demonstrated a similar positive clinical outcome (92.6% vs. 90.5%; p=0.594). Indirect revascularization (Group I: 26%; Group II: 44%) showed a significantly lower positive outcome in comparison to a successful DR as well as CR strategy (33.3% vs. 92.6%, p=0.0003; 40% vs 90.5%, p=0.001). IR outcome improved by the presence of collaterals (66.7% vs. 30.8%). Conclusions: In case of successful intervention, both strategies (DR and CR) yielded a similarly high proportion of positive clinical outcome. The role of collaterals and the pedal arch on the clinical outcome are important in patients in whom only IR was possible.