Validation of the Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) on Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia (CLTI) Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) in A Primary Endovascular Treatment Cohort Within the Basil-1 Trial
Akio Kodama,Meecham Lewis,Matthew Popplewell,Gareth Bate,Andrew Bradbury
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.06.985
IF: 6.427
2019-01-01
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Abstract:Introduction - The Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) is a new angiographic staging system described in the Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) on Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia (CTLI) that separately grades (from 0-4) the severity and extent of disease in the femoro-popliteal (FP) and infra-popliteal (IP) arterial segments to give an overall limb GLASS stage (termed I, II, III). The GVG proposes that GLASS be used to correlate the angiographic pattern of disease with immediate technical failure (ITF) and long-term clinical outcomes following infra-inguinal endovascular treatment (EVT) to facilitate shared decision-making and evidence-based revascularisation (EBR). However, GLASS has not yet been validated in a cohort of CLTI patients. The aim of the present study, therefore, was to validate GLASS for the first time by examining the relationship between GLASS, ITF and long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary EVT in the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL-1) trial. Methods - Using data obtained from the original, prospectively-gathered BASIL-1 trial case record forms (CRFs), we examined the relationships between ITF, amputation free survival (AFS), overall survival (OS), limb salvage (LS), and freedom from major adverse limb events (FF-MALE) in 213 patients who underwent primary EVT (FP only, n=159; IP+FP, n=49; IP only, n=5) as their first revascularisation procedure in BASIL-1; and in whom the original baseline (pre-intervention) angiograms were available for GLASS staging by an expert panel blinded to patient outcomes. Results - Baseline demographics and co-morbidities were typical of the CLTI population with 70% having tissue loss and 43% having diabetes. There were 5, 23, 37, 42, 106 patients in FP grade 0-4; 149, 23, 18, 8, 15 patients in IP grade 0-4; and 43, 54, 116 patients in GLASS stages I, II, and III, respectively. GLASS stage (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.92, p=0,02) and diabetes (p=0.004) were predictive of ITF, which occurred in 47/213 (22%) patients overall; in 14%, 15%, 28% patients in GLASS stages I, II, and III (p<0.05) respectively; and was associated with reduced LS (p<0.05). In the FP only group, GLASS stage III was associated with significantly worse AFS (vs stage I, p=0.04), LS (vs stage II, p=0.03) and FF-MALE (vs stage I, p=0.05); there was a trend towards worse OS (p=0.08). There was no relationship between these long-term clinical outcomes and GLASS stage in the IP±FP group. In the FP only group, increasing GLASS FP grade (severity from 0 to 4) was significantly associated with worse AFS (p=0.03) and FF-MALE p=0.03), but not LS (p=0.07) or OS (p=0.16). Conclusion - Present data and angiograms derived from the BASIL-1 suggest that overall GLASS stage and FP grade are useful predictors of ITF and longer-term clinical outcomes (especially AFS, FF-MALE) in patients undergoing EVT. Although further validation of the GLASS is clearly required, we conclude that GLASS is likely to facilitate shared decision-making and EBR allowing better choice of initial revascularisation procedure and stratification of patients within clinical trials.