Outcomes of reintervention for recurrent symptomatic disease after tibial endovascular intervention

Objective: Tibial interventions for critical limb ischemia are now commonplace. Restenosis and occlusion remain barriers to durability after intervention. The aim of this study was to examine the patient-centered outcomes of open and endovascular reintervention for symptomatic recurrent disease after a primary isolated tibial endovascular intervention. Methods: A database of patients undergoing isolated primary lower extremity tibial endovascular interventions between 2006 and 2016 was retrospectively queried. Patients with recurrent critical ischemia (Rutherford 4 and 5) were identified. Outcomes in this cohort were analyzed, and three groups were defined: endovascular reintervention (ie, a repeated tibial or pedal endovascular intervention), bypass (bypass to a tibial or pedal vessel), and primary amputation (ie, above- or below-knee amputation) on the ipsilateral leg. Patient-oriented outcomes of clinical efficacy (absence of recurrent signs or symptoms of critical ischemia, maintenance of ambulation, and absence of major amputation), amputation-free survival (survival without major amputation), and freedom from major adverse limb events (above-ankle amputation of the index limb or major reintervention, such as new bypass graft or jump or interposition graft revision) were evaluated after the reintervention. Results: There were 1134 patients (56% male; average age, 59 years) who underwent primary tibial intervention for critical ischemia, and 54% presented with symptomatic restenosis and occlusion. Of the 513 patients with recurrent disease, 58% presented with rest pain and the remainder with ulceration. A repeated tibial endovascular intervention was performed in 64%, open bypass in 19%, and below-knee amputation in 17%. Bypass was employed in patients with a good target vessel, venous conduit, and good pedal runoff. Patient-centered outcomes were better in the bypass group compared with the reintervention group (amputation-free survival, 45% ± 9% vs 27% ± 9% [P <.01]; major adverse limb events, 50% ± 9% vs 31% ± 9% [P <.05]; clinical efficacy, 60% ± 7% vs 30% ± 9% [P <.01], mean ± standard error of the mean at 5 years). Conclusions: Tibial interventions for critical ischemia are associated with a high rate of reintervention. In patients with good target vessel, venous conduit, and good pedal runoff, bypass appears more durable than repeated tibial endovascular intervention.