These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Impact of dual antiplatelet therapy after lower extremity revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia.
    Author: Ramanan B, Jeon-Slaughter H, Chen X, Kashyap VS, Kirkwood ML, Timaran CH, Modrall JG, Tsai S.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2021 Oct; 74(4):1327-1334. PubMed ID: 34023428.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after lower extremity revascularization in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is unknown because current recommendations are based on extrapolation of data from trials in coronary artery disease and stroke. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing an elective lower extremity revascularization for CLTI in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry discharged on a mono antiplatelet agent (MAPT) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). RESULTS: From 2003 to 2018, 50,890 patients underwent revascularization procedures for CLTI, and were discharged on MAPT or DAPT. Of these, 33,781 patients underwent endovascular therapy (EVT), and 17,109 patients underwent open surgery (OS) procedures. The rate of major amputation at 30 days in the target limb in the EVT group was 0.3% and 0.4% in the OS group (P = .22). On Kaplan-Meier analyses, patients on MAPT at discharge had a higher risk of 1-year major amputation compared with DAPT after EVT but not after OS procedures. Patients on MAPT had lower overall survival and amputation-free survival at 30 days and 1 year compared with DAPT after both EVT and OS. At 1 year, the MAPT group was at higher risk for target lesion reintervention after EVT compared with the DAPT group (15.9% vs 13%; P = .0012). There was no significant difference in thrombosis at 1 year between the MAPT and DAPT groups either after EVT (3.9% vs 3.7%; P = .3048) or OS (3.1% vs 3.2%; P = .2893). On Cox regression analysis, DAPT was associated with improved survival but not major amputation after both EVT and OS. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CLTI, DAPT at the time of discharge has a positive impact on amputation-free survival and overall survival after both EVT and OS as well as target lesion reintervention after EVT. DAPT was not associated with a positive impact on major amputation after either EVT or OS.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]