Prior Endovascular Intervention Is Not Detrimental to Pedal Bypasses for Ischemic Wounds

Background Endovascular strategies are often preferred for revascularization of ischemic foot wounds secondary to infrapopliteal disease because of the less invasive technique and faster recovery. Bypass is typically reserved for failures or lesions not amenable to balloon angioplasty. However, the effects of an endovascular-first approach on subsequent bypass grafts are largely unknown. This study evaluates the effects of prior endovascular tibial interventions (PTIs) on successive bypasses to pedal targets. Methods Patients who presented with ischemic tissue loss and tibial arterial occlusive disease to University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2006 and 2013 and underwent a surgical bypass to pedal arteries were included in this study. A retrospective chart review was conducted to obtain patient demographics, past medical history, extent of disease, prior tibial endovascular interventions, the treatment intervention, subsequent interventions, wound healing status, limb salvage, and patient survival. The primary outcome was primary patency of the pedal bypass graft. Results From 122 eligible patients, 27 had a PTI, whereas 95 had no prior endovascular tibial intervention (nPTI) in the treatment of ischemic pedal wounds with mean follow-up of 24.5 and 20.5 months, respectively ( P  = 0.36). The 2 groups were largely similar in terms of demographics, comorbidities, wound size, and degree of ischemia. Runoff scores between the 2 groups were also comparable (5.0 ± 1.6 for PTI and 4.8 ± 1.9 for nPTI, P  = 0.59). The plantar artery was a more common target vessel in the PTI group, whereas the posterior tibial artery was targeted more often in the nPTI group ( P  = 0.04). At 12 months, those with a PTI exhibited a shorter primary patency (34.8% vs. 60.2%, P  = 0.04). In a multivariate model, PTI was a significant risk factor for primary patency loss (hazard ratio 2.51, P  = 0.004). Primary assisted patency and secondary patency were similar between the 2 groups. Wound healing was improved in those patients who had a prior endovascular intervention with 63.8% healed at 1 year compared with only 34.8% of those without intervention ( P  = 0.01). Amputation-free survival was similar ( P  = 0.68), as was survival alone ( P  = 0.50). Conclusions Despite a decrease in primary patency, pedal bypass was not otherwise negatively affected by a PTI. Similar primary assisted patency, secondary patency, wound healing, and survival between the 2 patient populations indicate that an endovascular-first approach is a feasible treatment strategy to achieve similar clinical outcomes in the management of ischemic foot wounds.