Multivessel tibial revascularization for critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate single vs multiple tibial vessel interventions in patients with multivessel tibial disease. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in amputation-free survival between the groups.
Using the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, we reviewed patients undergoing lower extremity endovascular interventions involving the tibial arteries. Patients with CLI were included only if at least two tibial vessels were diseased and adequate perioperative data and clinical follow-up were available for review. The primary outcome was amputation-free survival.
There were 10,849 CLI patients with multivessel tibial disease evaluated from 2002 to 2017; 761 limbs had adequate data and follow-up available for review. Mean follow-up was 337 ± 62 days. Of these, 473 (62.1%) underwent successful single-vessel tibial intervention (group SV), whereas 288 (37.9%) underwent successful multivessel (two or more) intervention (group MV). Patients in group MV were younger (69.1 vs 73.2 years; P < .001), with higher tobacco use (29.5% vs 18.2%; P < .001). Group SV more commonly had concurrent femoral or popliteal inflow interventions (83.7% vs 78.1%; P = .05). Multivessel runoff on completion was significantly greater for group MV (99.9% vs 39.9%; P < .001). No differences were observed between group SV and group MV for major amputation (9.0% and 7.6%; P = .6), with similar amputation-free survival at 1 year (90.6% vs 92.9%; P = .372). In a multivariate Cox model, loss of patency was the only significant predictor of major amputation (hazard ratio, 5.36 [2.7-10.6]; P = .01). A subgroup analysis of 355 (46.6%) patients with tissue loss data showed that tissue loss before intervention was not predictive of future major amputation.
In the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, patients with CLI and occlusive disease involving multiple tibial vessels did not appear to have a limb salvage benefit from multiple tibial revascularization compared with single tibial revascularization.