Nationwide study of six-month readmissions in critical limb ischemia: Predictors and impact of revascularization strategies

Prakash Acharya, Prince Sethi, Sagar Ranka, Adam Alli, Kirk Hance, Anand Prasad, Zubair Shah, Kamal Gupta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objective: There is a paucity of data regarding six-month readmissions in critical limb ischemia patients and the influence of management strategy during index-admission [endovascular, surgical, hybrid procedure, medical therapy, and amputation]. We aimed to investigate the incidence, predictors, and impact of management strategies on six-month readmission in patients with critical limb ischemia. Methods: A secondary analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016–2017) was conducted. Propensity score matching was performed for subgroup analysis. Results: We identified 50,058 patients with primary diagnosis of critical limb ischemia. Six-month all-cause and critical limb ischemia-related readmission rate was 52.36% and 10.86%, respectively. The risk of all-cause readmission was lower with amputation but was similar among other subgroups. Patients receiving surgical [HR 0.62, CI(0.48–0.79), p < 0.001] and hybrid procedure [HR 0.65 (0.46–0.93), p = 0.02] had lower risk of unplanned critical limb ischemia-related readmission compared to endovascular, though the risk of unplanned revascularization/amputation during readmission was similar between the three strategies. The risk of non-critical limb ischemia-related readmission was higher with surgical [HR 1.13, CI(1.04–1.23), p = 0.003] and hybrid procedure [HR 1.17, CI(1.08–1.28), p < 0.001], driven by increased procedure-related/wound complications. Eventhough endovascular patients were older with more severe critical limb ischemia presentation, a lower proportion received home-health or placement upon discharge from index-admission. This could account for higher readmission without higher repeat revascularization in endovascular group. Conclusion: The risk of critical limb ischemia and non-critical limb ischemia-related readmission differ according to the management strategy. Significant differences in discharge disposition exist depending on revascularization strategy. Study findings identify opportunities for reducing readmissions by focusing on nonprocedural aspects like wound-care, discharge planning and placement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)255-266
Number of pages12
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 2022


  • Critical limb ischemia
  • endovascular intervention
  • peripheral hybrid revascularization
  • peripheral vascular surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'Nationwide study of six-month readmissions in critical limb ischemia: Predictors and impact of revascularization strategies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this