Efficacy of Subintimal vs Intraluminal Approach for Atherosclerotic Chronic Occlusive Femoropopliteal Arterial Disease

Overview

There are two ways of approaching atherosclerotic chronic occlusive femoro-popliteal arterial lesion with guide wire. One is the intraluminal approach of passing guide wire through the atheroma, the other is the subintimal approach of passing wire through the subintima of the vessel. Either of these two interventional technique can be chosen depending on the character of the lesions they have their own pros and cons which affects the success of the intervention. The study is limited to retrospective studies to which interventional technique is better for post-procedural recurrence rate, however there is no prospective randomized controlled study.

During interventions for atherosclerotic femoro-popliteal arterial lesion, chronic occlusive lesions are commonly encountered. The decision to approach these lesions by either guide wire, intraluminal approach or subintimal approach is by the decision of the operator. The subintimal approach intentionally passes the guide wire through the subintimal layer of vessel which was developed by Dr. Bolia. Through the subintimal approach, the success rate of procedure has increased. However this technique has shown some limitations which are guide wire re-entry, intimal injury, lengthening of the original lesion, periadventitial hematoma, perforated vessel, collateral vascular occlusion and limited usage of atherectomy devices. On the contrary, intimal approach is not only able to overcome the limitations of the subintimal approach, but it has shown an advantage in improving the success rate of the procedure by the variable techniques of anterograde, retrograde and trans-collaterals approach. These techniques however usually require longer procedure time with more exposure to larger amounts of intravenous contrast and radiation. It often cause the need for more interventional devices which results in higher expense such that it is a less cost-effective method. Recently the recommendation is the combination of these 2 interventional techniques depending on the character of lesions. As above, these approaches are chosen depending on the character of the lesion, however there are only limited retrospective studies without prospective randomized controlled study present to decide which method is better in terms of post-procedural recurrence rate.