A prognostic score for clinical success after revascularization of critical limb ischemia in hemodialysis patients.

Objective: The revascularization of critical limb ischemia (CLI) in hemodialysis (HD) patients features poor results in terms of patient survival and limb salvage. Recent predictive models in CLI revascularization did not specifically address HD patients. The aim of this study was to define risk factors for clinical success (CS) after revascularization of CLI in HD patients and to transform findings in a prognostic score.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of prospectively gathered data, including consecutive HD patients treated for CLI from January 2004 to December 2012. Patients' demographics, comorbidities, CLI stage (Rutherford classification), tissue loss (Texas University Wound classification [TUWC]), and type of revascularization were assessed. End points were CS after revascularization (amputation-free and reintervention-free survival) and a prognostic score for CS based on significant risk factors (multivariable analysis).

Results: In the study period, 131 patients (mean age, 70.2 ± 9.9 years; male, 76.3%) with a total of 180 limbs were treated. Endovascular (52.8%), surgical (28.9%), or hybrid (10.6%) revascularization was performed in 163 (90.6%) limbs in 117 patients. The mean (± standard deviation) follow-up was 20.8 ± 21.1 months. Considering revascularized patients, CS was 47.9%, 30.8%, and 17.8% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. On multivariable analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.05; P = .005), coronary artery disease (CAD; HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.32; P = .032), and TUWC stage D (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.22-2.67; P = .003) were independent negative factors. Type of revascularization had no influence on CS. The score for predicting CS was 0.026 × age (years) + 0.441 × CAD + 0.59 × TUWC stage D. CAD and TUWC stage D were 1 in the presence of disease and 0 in the absence of disease. The score has a significant discrimination power of 75.5% (P = .036), with a best cutoff value of 2.07. Patients with a CS score <2.07 would have a low risk of clinical failure, whereas patients with a CS score >2.07 would have a high risk. There were 31 (26.5%) cases of low-risk score and 86 (73.5%) cases of high-risk score. Cases with low-risk score had a CS at 1 year of 51.6% compared with 23.3% in cases with high-risk score.

Conclusions: CS after revascularization in HD patients remains poor independent of the type of revascularization. A prognostic model based on age, history of CAD, and severity of CLI (TUWC stage D lesion) can estimate an individual's chances of CS and may help in the decision-making process.