Advertisement

Embolic Protection Devices are Not Associated with Improved Outcomes of Atherectomy for Lower Extremity Revascularization

      Background

      Atherectomy is associated with a risk of distal embolization, but the role of embolic protection devices (EPDs) during atherectomy is not well-defined. This study examines the utilization and impact of EPD on the outcomes of atherectomy during peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs).

      Methods

      The annual trend in utilization of EPD during atherectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative PVI files (2010–2018) was derived. Patients with concomitant open surgery, acute limb ischemia, emergent-status, concomitant thrombolysis, missing indication, missing EPD use, and missing long-term follow-up data were excluded. The characteristics of patients undergoing atherectomy with and without EPD were compared. Propensity matching based on age, gender, race, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, end-stage renal disease, prior PVI, indication, urgent-status, TransAtlantic interSociety Consensus classification, and anatomical location of lesion was performed. The perioperative and 1-year outcomes of the matched groups were compared.

      Results

      EPD was used in 23.3% of atherectomy procedures (n = 5,013/21,500). The utilization of EPD with atherectomy increased from 8.8% to 22.7% (P = 0.003) during the study period. Patients undergoing atherectomy without EPD were more likely to have ESRD (7.8% vs. 5.2%; P < 0.001), tissue loss (31% vs. 23.1; P < 0.001), tibial intervention (39.6% vs. 23.3%; P < 0.001), higher number of arteries treated (1.78 ± 0.92 vs. 1.68 ± 0.93; P = 0.001), and longer length of lesion (21.15 ± 21.14 vs. 19 ± 20.27 cm; P = 0.004). Conversely, patients undergoing atherectomy with EPD were more likely to be White (81.1% vs. 74%; P < 0.001), have a history of smoking (80.6% vs. 74.5%; P < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (24.8% vs. 21.6%; P < 0.037), coronary artery disease (38.5% vs. 33.2%; P = 0.002), prior percutaneous coronary intervention (24.3% vs. 19.9%, P = 0.005), prior coronary artery bypass grafting (32.3% vs. 24.9%; P < 0.001), and prior PVI (49.2% vs. 45.1%; P = 0.023). After propensity matching, there were 1,007 patients in each group with no significant difference in baseline characteristics. There was no significant difference in short-term outcomes including the rate of distal embolization, technical success, dissection, perforation, discharge to home, and 30-day mortality. The use of EPD was, however, associated with longer fluoroscopy time. At 1-year, there was also no difference in primary patency, ipsilateral minor or major amputation, ankle brachial index improvement, reintervention, or mortality rate between patients who underwent atherectomy with and without EPD.

      Conclusions

      EPD has been increasingly used in conjunction with atherectomy especially in patients with claudication and femoropopliteal disease. However, the use of EPD during atherectomy does not seem to impact the outcomes. Further research is needed to justify the additional cost and fluoroscopy time associated with the use of EPD during atherectomy.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Annals of Vascular Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Radvany M.G.
        Use of embolic protection devices in peripheral interventions.
        Interv Cardiol. 2017; 12: 31-35
        • Mukherjee D.
        • Contos B.
        • Emery E.
        • et al.
        High reintervention and amputation rates after outpatient atherectomy for claudication.
        Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2018; 52: 427-433
        • Lam R.C.
        • Shah S.
        • Faries P.L.
        • et al.
        Incidence and clinical significance of distal embolization during percutaneous interventions involving the superficial femoral artery.
        J Vasc Surg. 2007; 46: 1155-1159
        • Shrikhande G.V.
        • Khan S.Z.
        • Hussain H.G.
        • et al.
        Lesion types and device characteristics that predict distal embolization during percutaneous lower extremity interventions.
        J Vasc Surg. 2011; 53: 347-352
        • Sixt S.
        • Rastan A.
        • Scheinert D.
        • et al.
        The 1-year clinical impact of rotational aspiration atherectomy of infrainguinal lesions.
        Angiology. 2011; 62: 645-656
        • Vierthaler L.
        • Callas P.W.
        • Goodney P.P.
        • et al.
        Determinants of survival and major amputation after peripheral endovascular intervention for critical limb ischemia.
        J Vasc Surg. 2015; 62: 655-664.e8
        • Bai H.
        • Fereydooni A.
        • Zhuo H.
        • et al.
        Comparison of atherectomy to balloon angioplasty and stenting for Isolated femoropopliteal revascularization.
        Ann Vasc Surg. 2020; 69: 261-273
        • Baim D.S.
        • Wahr D.
        • George B.
        • et al.
        Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts.
        Circulation. 2002; 105: 1285-1290
        • Kastrup A.
        • Gröschel K.
        • Krapf H.
        • et al.
        Early outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection devices: a systematic review of the literature.
        Stroke. 2003; 34: 813-819
        • Ochoa Chaar C.I.
        • Shebl F.
        • Sumpio B.
        • et al.
        Distal embolization during lower extremity endovascular interventions.
        J Vasc Surg. 2017; 66: 143-150
        • Krishnan P.
        • Tarricone A.
        • Purushothaman K.R.
        • et al.
        An algorithm for the use of embolic protection during atherectomy for femoral popliteal lesions.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10: 403-410
        • Allie D.E.
        To protect or not to protect? In lower extremity angioplasty procedures, “why not?” is the question!.
        J Endovasc Ther. 2008; 15: 277-282
        • Morrissey N.J.
        When is embolic protection needed in lower extremity interventions and how should it be done.
        J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2012; 53: 173-175
        • Müller-Hülsbeck S.
        • Scháfer P.J.
        • Hümme T.H.
        • et al.
        Embolic protection devices for peripheral application: wasteful or useful?.
        J Endovasc Ther. 2009; 16: 163-169
        • Banerjee A.
        • Sarode K.
        • Mohammad A.
        • et al.
        Safety and effectiveness of the Nav-6 filter in preventing distal embolization during jetstream atherectomy of infrainguinal peripheral artery lesions.
        J Invasive Cardiol. 2016; 18: 330-333
        • Brooke B.S.
        • Beck A.W.
        • Kraiss L.W.
        • et al.
        Association of quality improvement registry participation with appropriate follow-up after vascular procedures.
        JAMA Surg. 2018; 153: 216-223
        • Bensley R.P.
        • Beck A.W.
        Using the vascular quality initiative to improve quality of care and patient outcomes for vascular surgery patients.
        Semin Vasc Surg. 2015; 28: 97-102
        • Norgren L.
        • Hiatt W.R.
        • Dormandy J.A.
        • et al.
        Inter-society consensus for the management of peripheral arterial disease (TASC II).
        J Vasc Surg. 2007; 45: S5-S67
        • Mendes B.C.
        • Oderich G.S.
        • Fleming M.D.
        • et al.
        Clinical significance of embolic events in patients undergoing endovascular femoropopliteal interventions with or without embolic protection devices.
        J Vasc Surg. 2014; 59: 359-367.e1
        • Shammas N.W.
        • Coiner D.
        • Shammas G.A.
        • et al.
        Distal embolic event protection using excimer laser ablation in peripheral vascular interventions: results of the DEEP EMBOLI registry.
        J Endovasc Ther. 2009; 16: 197-202
        • Shammas N.W.
        • Dippel E.J.
        • Coiner D.
        • et al.
        Preventing lower extremity distal embolization using embolic filter protection: results of the PROTECT registry.
        J Endovasc Ther. 2008; 15: 270-276
        • Müller-Hülsbeck S.
        • Hümme T.H.
        • Philipp Schäfer J.
        • et al.
        Final results of the protected superficial femoral artery trial using the FilterWire EZ system.
        Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010; 33: 1120-1127
        • Suri R.
        • Wholey M.H.
        • Postoak D.
        • et al.
        Distal embolic protection during femoropopliteal atherectomy.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006; 67: 417-422
        • König C.W.
        • Pusich B.
        • Tepe G.
        • et al.
        Frequent embolization in peripheral angioplasty: detection with an embolism protection device (AngioGuard) and electron microscopy.
        Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2003; 26: 334-339
        • Ochoa Chaar C.I.
        • Kim T.I.
        • Shebl F.M.
        • et al.
        The use of embolic protection devices during lower extremity peripheral vascular interventions.
        Ann Vasc Surg. 2020; 69: 9-16