Perfusion Assessment, Wound Evaluation, and Local Wound Care Following Angioplasty and Stenting in Peripheral Artery Disease: A Scoping Review.

Background: Lower-extremity endovascular revascularization restores macrovascular blood flow in peripheral artery disease, but technical success does not necessarily ensure adequate tissue perfusion or wound healing. Continued perfusion surveillance, wound evaluation, and local wound management are therefore required after the procedure. Objective: This scoping review mapped evidence on post-revascularization perfusion assessment, wound evaluation, and local wound care after lower-extremity endovascular revascularization and identified nursing-relevant practices and evidence gaps. Methods: This review followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and was reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, and ScienceDirect were searched for peer-reviewed studies published from 2021 to 2026. Two reviewers independently screened the records, assessed full texts, and charted the data. The findings were synthesized descriptively and narratively. Results: Of 4,503 identified records, 14 studies from 12 countries met the eligibility criteria. These comprised one randomized comparative trial, eight prospective observational, registry, service-evaluation, or pilot studies, and five retrospective cohort studies. Perfusion assessments included the ankle-brachial index, duplex ultrasound, toe pressure, transcutaneous oxygen pressure, perfusion angiography, thermography, hyperspectral imaging, and positron emission tomography. The ultrasound-estimated ankle-brachial pressure index, transcutaneous oxygen pressure, toe pressure, and duplex surveillance were associated with wound-healing or limb outcomes. Evidence supporting emerging imaging and biomarker-based assessments remained exploratory. Local wound-care evidence was limited to one randomized comparison and one uncontrolled interventional study. None of the included studies directly evaluated a structured nurse-led or integrated multidisciplinary post-revascularization pathway. Conclusion: Technical revascularization success should not be considered equivalent to complete wound recovery. The available evidence primarily concerns objective perfusion reassessment and serial wound evaluation, whereas evidence for specific local wound-care interventions and formally evaluated nurse-led or integrated multidisciplinary pathways remains limited. Prospective studies should evaluate clearly defined post-revascularization pathways using consistent clinical, nursing-sensitive, patient-centered, and economic outcomes.