Randomized clinical trial of duplex ultrasound surveillance after endovascular therapy for chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

Godoy, Marcos Roberto; Brochado-Neto, Francisco Cardoso; Martins Cury, Marcus Vinícius; Manzioni, Renato; Maia Pires, Ana Paula; Biagioni, Rodrigo Bruno; Sacilotto, Roberto; Matielo, Marcelo Fernando · J Vasc Surg · 2025

rct · Level II

Where this comes from

Abstract

This study aimed to assess whether duplex ultrasound (DUS) surveillance yielded a better outcome compared with ankle-brachial index (ABI) surveillance after femoropopliteal endovascular therapy (EVT) in a cohort of patients affected by chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). A single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted on consecutive admissions of patients with CLTI who underwent infra-inguinal EVT between March 2018 and January 2021. On the day after the operation, 203 patients were randomized to the ABI group (n = 103) or DUS group (n = 100) for follow-up at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, and every 6 months thereafter. The primary endpoint was femoropopliteal primary assisted patency (PAP), secondary patency (SP), and amputation-free survival (AFS) rates, and secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and freedom from reintervention (FFR) rates. Survival curves were presented as Kaplan-Meier plots. Log-rank tests were performed to compare the differences between the groups. After the early postprocedural period (≤30 days), 185 patients alive with a patent treated segment remained in the study (ABI group, n = 98; DUS group, n = 87). The average age was 72.3 years (55.7% female; 84.3% had hypertension; 81% had diabetes; and 88.6% had tissue loss). The overall mean follow-up period was 517 days (95% confidence interval, 440-574 days), with no statistical differences between the groups. Survival curves using the Kaplan-Meier method were reported considering a follow-up time of 540 days. There were no statistical differences in primary patency rate between the ABI group and the DUS group (56% vs 59%, respectively; P = .30). However, there was a statistical difference between the groups in PAP rate (67% vs 78%, respectively; P = .04) and SP rate (78% vs 86%, respectively; P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in AFS rate (69% vs 82%, respectively; P = .07), OS rate (73% vs 83%, respectively; P = .20), and in FFR rate (66% vs 65%, respectively; P = 1.0). This single-center randomized controlled trial of patients with CLTI showed a significant benefit in terms of improved femoropopliteal PAP and SP rates in patients who underwent follow-up with DUS surveillance after infra-inguinal EVT; however, there was no difference in AFS, OS, and FFR rates between the groups. Our findings may contribute to the more comprehensive use of DUS surveillance after endovascular revascularization.

Medical subject headings