Background: With the advent of endovascular procedures, the indications for intervention in claudicants have become less strict. Many interventionalists, however, will not intervene in patients with lifestyle-limiting claudication unless they have discontinued tobacco use. Many patients are unable to comply with this goal, and there is little published evidence to suggest that continued tobacco use results in poorer outcomes. We sought to determine if it is justified to deny this group of patients endovascular, potentially lifestyle-improving, procedures based on their outcomes.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed between 2007 and 2011 at a midsize community teaching hospital. Patients included had documented lifestyle-limiting claudication, underwent endovascular therapy, and had no previous vascular intervention. Patients were divided into 2 groups: active smokers (AS) and nonsmokers (NS) including former and never smokers. The primary outcome was the need for reintervention and the secondary outcomes were the need for surgical revascularization, limb loss, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death.
Results: One hundred thirty-eight patients met inclusion criteria with 89 being male (64.5%). Forty-seven (34%) were active smokers versus 91 (66%) who were nonsmokers. Mean age at initial intervention for all 138 subjects was 66.34 years (standard deviation 10.7) and was not statistically different between the AS and NS groups. Mean follow-up was 3.6 years and was not significantly different between the two groups. Between the two groups (AS vs NS), there was no statistically significant difference between the rate of reintervention, surgical bypass, and limb loss. We also did not observe any significant difference in the rate of MI, stroke, or death during our follow-up period.
Conclusions: Although tobacco use has been shown to negatively impact bypass patency, our data show that it does not appear to increase the need for reintervention, conversion to open surgical revascularization, limb loss, or other morbidities in patients undergoing endovascular interventions for claudication. We continue to strongly recommend all our patients who smoke to discontinue tobacco use. Our results, however, do not support the notion that those patients who are unable to quit should be denied the potential benefit of an endovascular intervention. The most important limitation of our study is the small numbers of patients available for review. Larger studies will be necessary to confirm our findings.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.