Comparison of Femoropopliteal Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia in the BASIL Trial and in a UK Contemporary Series.

Lewis Meecham,Mathew Popplewell,Gareth Bate,Smitaa Patel,Andrew W. Bradbury
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2021.06.475
IF: 4.86
2021-01-01
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Abstract:Background: Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a worldwide trend towards an endovascular-first strategy where possible revascularization strategy for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. There is concern that this may be inappropriate and can result in net patient harm. The aim of this study, therefore, is to compare important clinical outcomes following femoropopliteal plain balloon angioplasty (FP-PBA), with selective use of bare metal stents (BMSs), in a contemporary series (CS) of patients treated in our unit between 2009 and 2014 with those observed following FP-PBA +/- BMS in the United Kingdom National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment-funded Bypass vs Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL-1 [B1]) trial (treated 1999-2004). Methods: Baseline and clinical outcome data (amputation-free survival [AFS], overall survival [OS], limb salvage, freedom from reintervention, and freedom from major adverse limb events) were obtained from prospectively gathered hospital data and B1 trial case record forms. Results: There were 237 CS and 218 B1 patients. CS patients were older (77 vs 73 years; P = .0002). B1 patients were more likely to be current smokers, less likely to be on best medical therapy, and underwent more extensive endovascular interventions. CS had more hospital admissions (4 vs 2; P < .0001) before they reached their primary endpoint (AFS). Immediate technical success was nonsignificantly higher in the CS patients (87% vs 83%; P = .2). BMS were used in 20 CS (8%) and 2 B1 (1%) patients (P = .0002). AFS (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.82; P = .0005) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.76; P = .0001) were significantly worse in the CS cohort. There was no significant difference in limb salvage, freedom from reintervention, or freedom from major adverse limb events. Conclusions: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia managed in our unit (2009-2014) bymeans of a FP-PBA +/- BMS first (where possible) revascularization strategy experienced significantly worse AFS and OS than patients treated with FP-PBA +/- BMS in the B1 trial 10 years earlier (1999-2004).
What problem does this paper attempt to address?