Outcomes of tibial endovascular intervention in patients with poor pedal runoff

Hallie E. Baer-Bositis, Taylor D. Hicks, Georges M. Haidar, Matthew J. Sideman, Lori L. Pounds, Mark G. Davies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


Objective: Tibial interventions for critical limb ischemia are now commonplace. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of pedal runoff on patient-centered outcomes after tibial endovascular intervention. Methods: A database of patients undergoing lower extremity endovascular interventions at a single urban academic medical center between 2006 and 2016 was retrospectively queried. Patients with critical ischemia (Rutherford 5 and 6) were identified. Preintervention angiograms were reviewed in all cases to assess pedal runoff. Each dorsalis pedis, lateral plantar, and medial plantar artery was assigned a score according to the reporting standards of the Society for Vascular Surgery (0, no stenosis >20%; 1, 21%-49% stenosis; 2, 50%-99% stenosis; 2.5, half or less of the vessel length occluded; 3, more than half the vessel length occluded). A foot score (dorsalis pedis + medial plantar + lateral plantar + 1) was calculated for each foot (1-10). Two runoff score groups were identified: good vs poor, <7 and ≥7, respectively. Patient-oriented outcomes of clinical efficacy (absence of recurrent symptoms, 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 [new bypass graft, jump/interposition graft revision]) were evaluated. Results: There were 1134 patients (56% male; average age, 59 years) who underwent tibial intervention for critical ischemia, with a mean of two vessels treated per patient and a mean pedal runoff score of 6 (47% had a runoff score ≥7). Overall major adverse cardiac events were equivalent at 30 days after the procedure in both groups. At 5 years, vessels with compromised runoff (score ≥7) had significantly lower ulcer healing (25% ± 3% vs 73% ± 4%, mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]) and a lower 5-year limb salvage rate (45% ± 6% vs 69% ± 4%, mean ± SEM) compared with those with good runoff (score <7). Patients with poor pedal runoff (score ≥7) had significantly lower clinical efficacy (23% ± 8% vs 38% ± 4%, mean ± SEM), amputation-free survival (32% ± 6% vs 48% ± 5%, mean ± SEM), and freedom from major adverse limb events (23% ± 9% vs 41% ± 8%, mean ± SEM) at 5 years compared with patients with good runoff (score <7). Conclusions: Pedal runoff score can identify those patients who will not achieve ulcer healing and patient-centered outcomes after tibial intervention. Defining such subgroups will allow stratification of the patients and appropriate application of interventions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1788-1796.e2
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Outcomes of tibial endovascular intervention in patients with poor pedal runoff'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this