Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 20, 2026

Synergizing Antegrade Endoscopic with Bridging Vein Harvesting for Improvement of Great Saphenous Vein Graft Quality from the Lower Leg
Published on: November 19, 2019
Infra-inguinal bypass surgery vs endovascular revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in average- and
Koichi Morisaki1, Daisuke Matsuda2, Atsushi Guntani3
1Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Bypass surgery offers better outcomes for average-risk chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients. Endovascular therapy (EVT) is a viable option for high-risk CLTI patients, showing similar results to bypass surgery.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Cardiology
- Peripheral Artery Disease
Background:
- Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) poses significant risks for limb loss and mortality.
- Revascularization through bypass surgery or endovascular therapy (EVT) are primary treatment options.
- Risk stratification is crucial for selecting optimal treatment strategies in CLTI patients.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare treatment outcomes of bypass surgery versus EVT in average-risk CLTI patients.
- To evaluate the efficacy of bypass surgery and EVT in high-risk CLTI patients.
- To determine the optimal revascularization strategy based on patient risk stratification.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of multicenter data (2015-2022) for infra-inguinal revascularization in CLTI patients.
- Definition of high-risk patients using the SPINACH calculator (≥5% 30-day mortality or ≤50% 2-year survival).
- Propensity score matching to compare amputation-free survival (AFS), limb salvage (LS), wound healing, and 30-day mortality between bypass and EVT groups.
Main Results:
- In average-risk patients, bypass surgery showed significantly higher 2-year AFS (78.1% vs 63.0%) and LS (94.4% vs 87.7%) rates compared to EVT (P < .001 and P = .007).
- Bypass surgery also demonstrated superior 1-year wound healing rates (88.6% vs 76.8%, P < .001) in average-risk patients; 30-day mortality was similar (0.8% for both).
- No significant differences in AFS, LS, or wound healing were observed between bypass and EVT in high-risk patients (P > .05); 30-day mortality was also similar (3.2% for both).
Conclusions:
- Bypass surgery is the superior revascularization method for average-risk CLTI patients, offering better AFS, LS, and wound healing.
- EVT serves as a feasible first-line treatment for high-risk CLTI patients, demonstrating comparable outcomes to bypass surgery.
- Risk stratification is essential for guiding the selection of bypass surgery or EVT in CLTI management.
More Related Videos
07:25Predicting Amputation using Local Circulating Mononuclear Progenitor Cells in Angioplasty-treated Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia
Published on: September 22, 2020
13:48Reduction of Radiation Exposure during Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease Combining Fiber Optic RealShape Technology and Intravascular Ultrasound
Published on: April 21, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care