Ten-year technical and clinical outcomes in TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II infrainguinal C/D lesions using duplex ultrasound arterial mapping as the sole imaging modality for critical lower limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate duplex ultrasound arterial mapping (DUAM) as the sole imaging modality when planning for bypass surgery (BS) and endovascular revascularization (EvR) in patients with critical limb ischemia for TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II C/D infrainguinal lesions.

METHODS: This was a retrospective review evaluating the accuracy of DUAM as the sole imaging tool in determining patient suitability for BS vs EvR. Primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of DUAM compared with intraoperative digital subtraction angiography. Secondary outcomes were procedural, hemodynamic, and clinical outcomes, amputation-free survival, and freedom from major adverse clinical events.

RESULTS: From 2002 to 2012, a total of 4783 patients with peripheral arterial disease were referred, of whom 622 critical limb ischemia patients underwent revascularization for TASC C and D lesions (EvR: n = 423; BS: n = 199). Seventy-four percent of EvR and 82% of BS were performed for TASC D (P = .218). The DUAM showed sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 98% in identifying lesions requiring intervention. Of the 520 procedures performed with DUAM alone, there was no difference regarding the number of procedures performed for occlusive or de novo lesions (EvR: 65% and 71%; BS: 87% and 78%; P = .056). Immediate clinical improvement to the Rutherford category ≤3 was 96% for EvR and 97% for BS (P = .78). Hemodynamic success was 79% for EvR and 77% for BS (P = .72). Six-year freedom from binary restenosis was 71.6% for EvR and 67.4% for BS (P = .724). Six-year freedom from target lesion revascularization was 81.1% for EvR and 70.3% for BS (P = .3571). Six-year sustained clinical improvement was 79.5% for EvR and 66.7% for BS (P = .294). Six-year amputation-free survival was 77.2% for EvR and 74.6% for BS (P = .837). There was a significant difference in risk of major adverse clinical events between EvR and BS (51% vs 70%; P = .034). Only 16.4% of patients required magnetic resonance angiography, which tended to overestimate lesions with 84% agreement with intraoperative findings. Six-year binary restenosis was 71% for DUAM procedures compared with 55% for magnetic resonance angiography procedures (P = .001), which was solely based on the prospective modality.

CONCLUSIONS: The DUAM epitomizes a minimally invasive, economically proficient modality for road mapping procedural outcome in BS and EvR. It allows for high patient turnover with procedural and clinical success without compromising hemodynamic outcome. The DUAM is superior to other available modalities as the sole preoperative imaging tool in a successful limb salvage program.