Abstract Background The relevance of an angiosome model for infrapopliteal endovascular interventions (EVT) in diabetic patients is still in debate because the lesions are more likely to be diffuse with a different pattern of collateral arteries ranging from reduced to normal caliber. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcome of two different endovascular infrapopliteal interventional strategies (Group I: angiosome-based direct revascularization -DR- vs. Group II: complete (direct + indirect) revascularization strategy -CR-) in diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia. Furthermore we analyzed the outcome if DR or CR failed and only indirect revascularization (IR) or no revascularization was possible. Both groups were differentiated in patients with collaterals, defined as an intact pedal arch (immediate or after pedal PTA). Patients and methods We performed a prospective cohort study in routine angiologic patients. The database includes 91 consecutive EVT with two intrapopliteal interventional strategies performed in 68 diabetic patients (pts.; 24 female, 44 male, mean age 73±10 years) between 2013–2015 and 2016–2019. The study included only patients with CLI (Rutherford class 4 or greater) with a critical subtotal stenosis or occlusion of at least one artery below the knee. EVT were performed mainly by an antegrade approach and with the use of 5F sheaths. In case of failure to recanalise, a retrograde approach was attempted. Positive clinical outcome was defined as wound healing without amputation or wound healing after minor amputation, combined with a symptom improvement to Rutherford category 0 or 1 after 6 months. The clinical outcome proportions were compared using the Fisher's exact test. Results An angiosome-based direct reperfusion (DR) of the artery supplying the ischemic tissue and a complete (both direct and indirect, CR) revascularization strategy demonstrated a similar positive clinical outcome (92,6% vs. 90,5%; p=0.594). Indirect revascularization showed a significantly lower positive outcome in comparison to a successful DR as well as CR strategy (33,3% vs 92,6%, p=0.0003; 40% vs 90,5%, p=0.001). IR outcome improved by the presence of collaterals (66,7% vs. 30,8%). Conclusions In case of successful intervention, both strategies (DR and CR) yielded a similarly high proportion of positive clinical outcome. The role of collaterals and the pedal arch are important for the clinical outcome in patients in whom only indirect revascularization was possible, because of unsuccessful CR or DR. The time of the procedure/radiation, the risk to reopen more than one vessel, the necessary amount of contrast medium and final the costs of the procedure should also be considered for an individually based decision process to perform an angiosome-based direct or a complete revascularization. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None