Early evaluation of the infrainguinal revascularization strategy selection tool of the Global Vascular Guidelines for chronic limb-threatening ischemia patients.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE\nThe Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) propose a novel Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) with the Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) classification system as a clinical decision-making tool for interventions in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). We assessed the validity of clinical staging and the relationship between the treatments recommended by the GVG and the outcomes of the actual procedures.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThis retrospective single-center observational study included 117 CLTI patients undergoing infrainguinal revascularization in our hospital between 2015 and 2019. Of those patients, 55 underwent open bypass (OB) and 62 underwent endovascular revascularization (EVR). Femoropopliteal (FP), infrapopliteal (IP), and inframalleolar (IM) GLASS grades were assigned based on angiographic images. These grades were combined to determine the revascularization strategy recommended by the GVG: endovascular, indeterminate, and open bypass. The indeterminate category includes three subcategories: GLASS stage III, WIfI stage 2; GLASS stage II, WIfI stage 3; and GLASS stage II, WIfI stage 4. For the purposes of this study, we labeled these subcategories A, B, and C, respectively. The primary outcome was the correlation between the revascularization strategies recommended by the GVG and the actual procedures performed. The relationships between the actual procedures and overall survival, limb salvage, and patency were also examined.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe FP and IP GLASS grades were higher in the OB group. EVR was performed more often for GLASS stages I and II and was more often classified as indeterminate B and C, whereas OB was performed more often in GLASS stage III and was more often classified as indeterminate A. There were no statistically significant differences in the IM/pedal disease descriptor or in the 30-day postoperative complication rates between the two groups. In higher GLASS stages, the technical success rate of EVR was lower, and lesion complexity was more severe. Patients for whom the recommended strategy according to the GVG would have been open bypass but who underwent EVR were associated with low limb salvage and patency rates.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe GVG provide good guidance for the selection of the revascularization strategy. When the GVG indicate OB, it should be the treatment of choice, rather than EVR, for patients who are fit to undergo the procedure.