Contraindications to tissue plasminogen activator thrombolysis for acute lower extremity ischemia

Abstract

Objective Previous randomized prospective trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of transcatheter tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) thrombolysis in treating acute limb ischemia (ALI) compared to conventional surgery. These pivotal trials have also highlighted contraindications for these procedures. Given recent advancements in techniques and technology, our aim is to reassess the relevance of these contraindications in contemporary practice. Methods A retrospective chart analysis was performed utilizing the inpatient medical records of consecutive individuals who underwent tPA treatment for acute limb ischemia (ALI) from September 2016 to April 2022. Inclusion criteria encompassed patients aged 18 and above displaying clinical symptoms and imaging evidence of ALI within 14 days. All patients received tPA with suction thrombectomy following the fast-track thrombolysis protocol. In cases where a persistent thrombus or stenosis was detected, catheter-directed thrombolysis was considered overnight, and patients underwent angiography and reassessment in the operating room subsequently. Results Patients were classified into two groups based on the STILE trial’s established contraindications for endovascular treatment in acute limb ischemia (ALI). If a patient had any of these contraindications, they were placed in the contraindicated group. This resulted in 24 patients (32%) in the contraindicated group and 52 patients (68%) in the non-contraindicated group. No statistically significant demographic variations were observed between these groups. Contraindications in our study included uncontrolled hypertension (12/24, 50%), recent invasive procedures (7/27, 29%), history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) within 6 months (3/24, 12%), and intracranial malformation/neoplasms (2/24, 8%). Three patients within the non-contraindicated group experienced bleeding complications: two with puncture site bleeds and one with nasal bleeding. In contrast, one patient in the contraindicated group had transient postoperative hematuria. There were no significant differences in bleeding complications observed between the two groups ( p = .771). Additionally, no amputations were observed within our population. Conclusions In light of our study results and advancements in endovascular therapies, we can now safely and efficiently treat patients who were previously considered contraindicated for such treatments. It is essential to individualize treatments and carefully balance the risks and benefits of endovascular versus open surgical revascularization for these patients. Additionally, we believe that the nearly 30-year-old guidelines for endovascular therapies need to be revisited and updated to align with modern technology.