30-day major amputation

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

Bypass-first revascularization was associated with significantly lower 30-day major amputation compared with endovascular-first strategy in CLTI patients with infrageniculate disease (4.3% vs 7.4%; ad

Effect: improvement; OR 0.60; CI: 95% CI 0.36-0.98

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null

After excluding ESRD patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day amputation between bypass-first and endovascular-first revascularization (4.1% vs 6.2%; P=0.1), suggesting the amputation b

Effect: null