Retrograde Revascularization of Tibial Arteries in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia: Plantar-Arch Versus Transpedal Approach

Erik Stahlberg*, Andreas Stroth, Alexander Haenel, Ulrike Grzyska, Franz Wegner, Malte Sieren, Marco Horn, Jörg Barkhausen, Jan Peter Goltz

*Corresponding author for this work
3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare retrograde plantar-arch and transpedal-access approach for revascularization of below-the-knee (BTK) arteries in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) after a failed antegrade approach. 

Materials and Methods: Retrospectively we identified 811 patients who underwent BTK revascularization between 1/2014 and 1/2020. In 115/811 patients (14.2%), antegrade revascularization of at least 1 tibial artery had failed. In 67/115 (58.3%), patients retrograde access to the target vessel was achieved via the femoral access and the plantar-arch (PLANTAR-group); and in 48/115 patients (41.7%) retrograde revascularization was performed by an additional retrograde puncture (TRANSPEDAL-group). Comorbidities, presence of calcification at pedal-plantar-loop/transpedal-access-site, and tibial-target-lesion was recorded. Endpoints were technical success (PLANTAR-group: crossing the plantar-arch; TRANSPEDAL-group: intravascular placement of the pedal access sheath), procedural success [residual stenosis <30% after plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA)], and procedural complications limb salvage and survival. Correlations between calcification at access site/tibial-target-lesion and technical/procedural-success were tested. 

Results: Technical success was achieved in 50/67 (75%) patients of the PLANTAR-group and in 39/48 (81%) patients of the TRANSPEDAL-group (p=0.1). Procedural success was obtained in 23/67 (34%) patients of the PLANTAR-group and in 25/48 (52%) patients of the TRANSPEDAL-group (p=0.04). In 14/49 (29%) cases with calcification at the pedal–plantar loop, technical success was not achieved (p=0.04), and in 33/44 (75%) patients with calcification at the tibial-target-lesion, procedural success was not attained (PLANTAR-group) (p=0.026). In the TRANSPEDAL-group, correlations between calcification at access site/tibial-target-lesion and technical/procedural-success were not observed (p=0.2/p=0.4). In the PLANTAR-group, minor complications occurred in 13/67 (19%) and in the TRANSPEDAL-group in 4/48 patients (8%) (p=0.08). Limb salvage at 12 (18) months was 90% (82%) (PLANTAR-group; 95%CI 15.771–18.061) and 84% (76%) (TRANSPEDAL-group; 95%CI 14.475–17.823) (Log-rank p=0.46). Survival at 12 (18) months was 94% (86%) (PLANTAR-group; 95%CI 16.642–18.337) and 85% (77%) (TRANSPEDAL; 95%CI 14.296–17.621) (Log-rank p=0.098). 

Conclusion: Procedural success was significantly higher using the transpedal-access approach. Calcifications at pedal–plantar loop and target-lesion significantly influenced technical/procedural failure using the plantar-arch approach. No significant difference between both retrograde techniques in terms of feasibility, safety, and limb salvage/survival was found.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Endovascular Therapy
Volume29
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)181-192
Number of pages12
ISSN1526-6028
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 04.2022

Research Areas and Centers

  • Academic Focus: Biomedical Engineering

DFG Research Classification Scheme

  • 205-30 Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Therapy and Radiobiology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Retrograde Revascularization of Tibial Arteries in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia: Plantar-Arch Versus Transpedal Approach'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this