Infrared thermography (IRT) is a promising imaging method in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). This systematic review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of the employment of IRT as both a diagnostic method and an outcome measure in PAD patients in relation to any kind of intervention. On September 2022, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and gray literature were screened. Eligible articles employing IRT in PAD were screened for possible inclusion. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Twenty-one eligible articles were finally included, recruiting a total of 1078 patients. The IRT was used for PAD diagnosis/monitoring in 11 studies or to assess the effect of interventions (revascularization, pharmacological therapy, or exercise rehabilitation) in 10 studies. The analysis of the included papers raised high concerns about the overall quality of the studies. In conclusion, IRT as a noninvasive technique showed promising results in detecting foot perfusion in PAD patients. However, limits related to devices, points of reference, and measurement conditions need to be overcome by properly designed trials before recommending its implementation in current vascular practice.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility and reliability of temperature foot changes measured by infrared thermography (IRT) for the evaluation of patients with atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) before and after endovascular revascularisation. Methods: This is an observational prospective study carried out on symptomatic PAD patients. Evaluations consisted of a clinical examination, duplex scan with ankle–brachial index calculation (ABI) and IRT measurements with infrared camera FLIR-ONE connected to a smartphone with android technology. Locations on the foot sampled with IRT were the anterior tibial, pedal, posterior and arcuate arteries. Results obtained with IRT on the symptomatic foot were compared to the contralateral foot and with the ABI values obtained bilaterally before and 24 h after revascularisation. Results: Within one year, 40 patients were enrolled, among whom 87,5% suffered from critical limb ischaemia. In three patients, it was impossible to obtain ABI measurements because of ulcerations on the limb. Skin temperature changes obtained by IRT between the symptomatic limb and the contralateral limb had a mean difference of 1.7 °C (range: 1.1–2.2 °C), p < 0.001. There was a positive correlation between ABI and temperature values of the limb needed for treatment before revascularisation (p = 0.025; r = 0.36) and after revascularisation (p = 0.024, r = 0.31). The technical success rate was 100% in all cases, achieving a significant increase in temperature at all points of the foot analysed, with a median change of 2 °C (p < 0.001). Conclusion: IRT is a safe, reliable and simple application. It could be a valuable tool for the assessment of the clinical presentation and severity of foot blood perfusion in symptomatic PAD patients and the evaluation of the technical success of endovascular revascularisation. IRT might have a role in follow-up of revascularisation procedures.

Aim: Complex atherosclerotic femoro-popliteal lesions have traditionally been treated with bypass surgery. A prosthetic graft is used to save the vein graft for more distal revascularisations or when a vein graft is unavailable. The endovascular approach has gained popularity and is offered as a first-line strategy for complex lesions. This study aimed to evaluate whether endovascular procedures can be used as a first-line treatment strategy for complex native femoro-popliteal lesions over open surgery with prosthetic bypass in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Methods: This single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted between 2013 and 2021; it included patients with symptomatic PAD who required limb revascularisation at the femoro-popliteal segment and who had complex lesions. The primary endpoints analysed were technical success, primary patency, freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (cdTLR), freedom from major adverse limb and cardiovascular events (MALE and MACE, respectively), freedom from limb loss, and survival. The secondary endpoints were length of in-hospital stay, and duration and costs of the procedure. Results: We identified 185 limbs among 174 suitable candidates for comparison, wherein 105 were treated with an endovascular procedure and 80 with a femoro-popliteal prosthetic bypass. Most patients in both groups presented with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia, and >90% of them had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of >3. The endovascular group had more octogenarians (p = 0.02) and patients with coronary disease (p = 0.004). The median follow-up was 30 months. The technical failure rate for endovascular procedures was 4.7%, versus 0% in the open group (p = 0.047). Freedom from MACE was similar in both groups. The endovascular group showed superior primary patency (p < 0.0001), cdTLR (p < 0.0001), MALE (p < 0.0001), and freedom from limb loss (p = 0.0018) at 24 and 48 months. Further analysis performed for the open above-the-knee sub-group showed that the aforementioned endpoints were similar between the groups at 12 months and were better in the endovascular group at 24 and 48 months. Procedural time and in-hospital stay were longer in the open group than in the endovascular group (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.001, respectively). The procedural cost in the endovascular group was 10-fold lower than that in the prosthetic bypass group. Conclusions: Endovascular procedures are safe for treating complex femoro-popliteal lesions in patients at a high risk for surgery and show better outcomes at 24 months than prosthetic bypasses do. The latter may be considered as an alternative should endovascular treatment fail.