Comparing the Benefit of Duplex Ultrasound Surveillance Following Both Infrainguinal Bypass Surgery and Stenting for Femoro-Popliteal Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Duplex ultrasound surveillance (DUS) is commonly used following infrainguinal vein bypass. The role of DUS following endovascular revascularisation is as yet unclear. This study focuses on the role of DUS in a contemporary group of patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass or stent insertion. METHODS: All patients undergoing either an infrainguinal vein graft bypass or stent insertion into the femoro-popliteal segment (November 2014 - January 2017) were identified. Patients were followed up for 2 years. Data on entry into DUS, pre-operative characteristics, adjunctive pharmacotherapy and reintervention were collated. The primary outcomes were major lower limb amputation and mortality at 2 years post revascularisation. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five patients underwent infrainguinal vein bypass and 100 patients underwent stent insertion. 107 patients in the bypass cohort and 58 patients in the stent cohort entered DUS. For the bypass cohort, entering DUS was associated with a lower mortality rate (P = .003) but was not associated with an improvement in amputation rates. The odds ratio of major amputation or mortality was greater in the no surveillance group (4.58, 95% CI: 1.855 - 11.364). In the stent cohort, DUS was not associated with a significant improvement in either major amputation or death (odds ratio 2.13 (95% CI 0.903 - 5.051; P = .081). CONCLUSION: DUS was associated with improved survival rates in patients undergoing lower limb bypass but had no benefit in those patients undergoing stent insertion. The role of DUS following stent insertion in the femoropopliteal segment needs to be better defined.

Patient and Institutional Costs of Failure of Angioplasty of the Superficial Femoral Artery.

BACKGROUND: Debate surrounds the optimal management of superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease. Randomized trial data rarely reflect real world findings, specifically the consequences to the patient of angioplasty failure. We observed the effect of a failed SFA angioplasty on the need for repeated clinic visits, hospital readmissions, imaging requirements, and reinterventions. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 148 patients (94 men, median age 72 years) undergoing solely SFA angioplasty over a 2-year period. Patient preangioplasty demographics and 2-year post-PTA follow-up data were collated, including hospital attendances (inpatient/outpatient), further imaging (including radiation exposure) and revascularization attempts. We defined "failed angioplasty" as presence of clinical symptoms with radiological evidence of significant restenosis after an initial successful primary SFA angioplasty. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients represented with a failed angioplasty (median time of 4 months after index PTA). In this group, failure of index angioplasty resulted in a further 185 restenosis-related clinic visits and a total of 537 bed days of inpatient stay. This group underwent a further 149 imaging events and required a further 34 endovascular revascularization procedures and 12 infrainguinal bypass procedures. These interventions and investigations corresponded to overall effective radiation dose across all patients of 190.69 mSv. Of the cohort of 99 patients who did not have a "failed angioplasty," they required 100 clinic visits, 21 further scans (total radiation dose 6.42 mSv), and 36 bed days of inpatient admission. CONCLUSIONS: Failed angioplasty results in significant additional consequences for patients and health-care systems. Further work should focus on refining decision-making, providing the right procedure to the right patient at the right time.