The Society for Vascular Surgery Objective Performance Goals for Critical Limb Ischemia are attainable in select patients with ischemic wounds managed with wound care alone.

Background: To set therapeutic benchmarks, in 2009 the Society for Vascular Surgery defined objective performance goals (OPG) for treatment of patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) with either open surgical bypass or endovascular intervention. The goal of these OPGs are to set standards of care from a revascularization standpoint and to provide performance benchmarks for 1 year patency rates for new endovascular therapies. While OPGs are useful in this regard, a critical decision point in the treatment of patients with CLTI is determining when revascularization is necessary. There is little guidance in the comprehensive treatment of this patient population, especially in the nonoperative cohort. Guidelines are needed for the CLTI patient population as a whole and not just those revascularized, and our aim was to assess whether CLTI OPGs could be attained with nonoperative management alone.

Methods: Our cohort included patients with an incident diagnosis of CLTI (by hemodynamic and symptomatic criteria) at our institution from 2013-2017. The primary outcome measured was mortality. Secondary outcomes were limb loss and failure of amputation-free survival. Descriptive statistics were used to define the 2 groups - patients undergoing primary revascularization and patients undergoing primary wound management. The risk difference in outcomes between the 2 groups was estimated using collaborative-targeted maximum likelihood estimation.

Results: Our cohort included 349 incident CLTI patients; 60% male, 51% white, mean age 63 +/- 13 years, 20% Rutherford 4, and 80% Rutherford 5. Most patients (277, 79%) underwent primary revascularization, and 72 (21%) were treated with wound care alone. Demographics and presenting characteristics were similar between groups. Although the revascularized patients were more likely to have femoropopliteal disease (72% vs. 36%), both groups had a high rate of infrapopliteal disease (62% vs. 57%). Not surprisingly, the patients in the revascularization group were less likely to have congestive heart failure (34% vs. 42%), complicated diabetes (52% vs. 79%), obesity (19% vs. 33%), and end stage renal disease (14% vs. 28%). In the wound care group, 2-year outcomes were 65% survival, 51% amputation free survival, 19% major limb amputation, and 17% major adverse cardiac event. The wound care cohort had a 13% greater risk of death at 2 years; however, the risk of limb loss at 2 years was 12% less in the wound care cohort.

Conclusions: A comprehensive set treatment goals and expected amputation free survival outcomes can guide revascularization, but also assure that appropriate outcomes are achieved for patients treated without revascularization. The 2-year outcomes achieved in this cohort provide an estimate of outcomes for nonrevascularized CLTI patients. Although multi-center or prospective studies are needed, we demonstrate that equal, even improved, limb salvage rates are possible.