IF06. Comparison of Outcomes Following Infrapopliteal Endovascular Intervention in the BASIL-1 Trial (1999- 2004) with Outcomes in a Contemporary Series (2009-2013)

Matthew A. Popplewell,Huw O. Davies,Mary Renton,Smitaa Patel,Gareth R. Bate,Arul Ganeshan,Andrew W. Bradbury
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2016.03.224
IF: 4.86
2016-01-01
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Abstract:This study compared outcomes in 48 patients randomized between September 1999 and June 2004 to primary infrapopliteal (IP) endovascular (EV) intervention for severe limb ischemia (SLI; rest pain, tissue loss, or both due to atherosclerosis) within the UK NIHR HTA-funded Bypass vs Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Limb (BASIL) 1 trial (B1) with outcomes in 74 consecutive patients undergoing primary IP EV intervention at a U.K. tertiary vascular center between July 2009 and June 2013 (contemporary series, CS). Individual patient data were obtained from prospectively gathered, computerized B1 and contemporary databases. B1 and CS patients had at least 3- and 1-year follow-up, respectively. Patients undergoing IP intervention to the same leg in the previous 12 months were excluded. The primary outcome was amputation free survival (AFS); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), major (above-ankle) limb amputation, reintervention, immediate technical success, and length of hospital stay during index procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4. All patients except one CS had their IP disease treated by plain balloon angioplasty only. B1 and CS patients were not significantly different in terms of male sex (67% B1, 70% CS), age (median 76 B1, 79 CS years), diabetes (48% B1, 61% CS), previous stroke (17% B1, 22% CS), myocardial infarction (29% B1, 41% CS), previous revascularization of the same leg (25% B1 vs 22% CS), or tissue loss (85% B1 vs 76% CS). Immediate procedural technical success was significantly higher in the CS patients (91% vs 73%; P = .01). B1 patients were more likely to have concurrent EV treatment of the superficial femoral (60% vs 36%; P = .01) and/or popliteal artery (60% vs 36%; P = .006) and more likely to have occlusive (as opposed to stenotic) disease treated (75% vs 55%; P = .02). There was no difference in AFS (P = .3; Fig 1), OS (P = .2; Fig 2), major amputation (P = .39), reintervention (P = .16) or length of stay (P = .07) between the B1 and CS patients. Despite significant improvements in immediate technical success rates, outcomes after EV treatment of SLI due to IP disease have not improved between 1999 and 2004 (B1) and 2009 and 2013 (CS). B1 trial data remain relevant to contemporary practice. An EV-first revascularization strategy for SLI due to IP disease still lacks a Level 1 evidence base and further randomized controlled trials, such as BEST-CLI (U.S.) and BASIL-2 (U.K.) are required to define optimal revascularization strategies in this challenging patient group.Fig 1View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)
What problem does this paper attempt to address?