Comparative Outcomes of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis and Open Surgical Revascularization in Early-Stage Acute Limb Ischemia: Real-World Evidence from a Retrospective Cohort Study

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Acute limb ischemia (ALI) is a vascular emergency where timely revascularization is crucial for limb salvage and survival. While open surgical revascularization (OSR) has been the traditional standard, catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. Comparative real-world evidence in early-stage ALI (Rutherford I–IIa) remains limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study including 36 patients with ALI treated between 2019 and 2023 (OSR: n=24; CDT: n=12). Demographics, comorbidities, procedural details, and outcomes were analyzed. The primary endpoint was a composite of in-hospital mortality, primary patency, and secondary patency. Secondary endpoints included amputation, cerebrovascular events, renal function, and hospital stay. Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals were reported alongside p-values to address type II error risk. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Both OSR and CDT significantly improved ankle-brachial index (0.64 ± 0.43 to 0.93 ± 0.33, p< 0.001) and postoperative arterial patency. At 12 months, primary patency was 66.7% (OSR) vs. 50.0% (CDT), and secondary patency was 79.2% vs. 75.0% (p>0.05). Major amputation (12.5% vs. 16.7%) and mortality (8.3% vs. 16.7%) rates did not differ significantly. Hospital stay was longer after OSR (7.29 ± 4.58 vs. 6.08 ± 8.75 days, p=0.038). Fibrinogen levels decreased significantly during CDT, but no major bleeding events occurred. Conclusion: Both OSR and CDT provide effective revascularization in early ALI, with comparable limb salvage and survival outcomes. CDT offers a minimally invasive alternative with acceptable safety when accompanied by careful monitoring, whereas OSR remains a reliable option with immediate reperfusion. Larger multicenter studies are needed to refine patient selection and optimize treatment algorithms.

Article activity feed