Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial: A description of the severity and extent of disease using the Bollinger angiogram scoring method and the TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II classification.

Donald J. Adam,J. Bell,J. Forbes,I. Gillespie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2010.01.075

IF: 4.86

2010-05-01

Journal of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Bypass Versus Angio Plasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg - 2 (BASIL-2) Trial: Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial

Matthew A. Popplewell,Huw Davies,Hugh Jarrett,Gareth Bate,Margaret Grant,Smitaa Patel,Samir Mehta,Lazaros Andronis,Tracy Roberts,Jon Deeks,Andrew Bradbury,on Behalf of the BASIL-2 Trial Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1114-2

IF: 2.728

2016-01-01

Trials

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Severe limb ischaemia is defined by ischaemic rest/night pain, tissue loss, or both, secondary to arterial insufficiency and is increasingly caused by infra-popliteal (below the knee) disease, mainly as a result of the increasing worldwide prevalence of diabetes. Currently, it is unknown whether vein bypass surgery or the best endovascular treatment (angioplasty or stenting) represents the optimal revascularisation strategy in terms of amputation-free survival, overall survival, relief of symptoms, quality of life and cost-effective use of health care resources.METHODS/DESIGN:The Bypass vs. Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg - 2 Trial is a UK National Institute of Health Research, Health Technology Assessment funded, multi-centre randomised controlled trial that compares, at the point of clinical equipoise, the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a 'vein bypass first' and a 'best endovascular treatment first' revascularisation strategy for severe limb ischaemia due to infra-popliteal disease. The primary clinical outcome is amputation-free survival defined as the time to major (above the ankle) amputation of the trial limb or death from any cause. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis is cost per quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, quality of life, in-hospital mortality and morbidity, repeat and crossover interventions, healing of tissue loss and haemodynamic changes following revascularisation. Sample size is estimated at 600 patients. An economic evaluation will be conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service and comprise a 'within-study' analysis, based on prospectively collected trial data and a 'model-based' analysis, which will extrapolate and compare costs and effects beyond the study follow-up period.DISCUSSION:The BASIL-2 trial is designed to be pragmatic and represent current practice within the United Kingdom. Patients with severe limb ischaemia can only be randomised into the trial where clinical equipose exists. The advent of hybrid operating procedures should not be a barrier to randomisation, should a patient require inflow correction prior to tibial revascularisation.TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN:27728689 Date of registration: 12 May 2014.
Responses to the Main Critiques of the Bypass Versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 Trial

Matthew A. Popplewell,Andrew W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2023.11.056

IF: 1.5

2024-01-01

Annals of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial randomised 452 participants with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) to either infra-inguinal surgical bypass (SB) (around 75% vein bypass [VB], 25% prosthetic) or plain balloon angioplasty (PBA). In those participants who survived for two years, randomisation to SB was associated with significantly better overall survival (OS), and a trend towards improved amputation free survival (time to death from any cause, or time to first major, above ankle, amputation, whichever occurred first, AFS) [1].
Mid-Term Limb Salvage Following Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Severe Limb Ischaemia Due to Infra-Popliteal Disease: A Comparison of the Basil Trial (1999-2004) with a Contemporary Series (2009-2013)

Matthew Popplewell,Huw Davies,Mary Renton,Gareth Bate,Smitaa Patel,John Deeks,Andrew Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.06.556

IF: 6.427

2019-01-01

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract:Introduction - Despite the only available level 1 evidence (from the UK NIHR HTA- funded BASIL-1 trial, B-1) showing superior outcomes from bypass, in recent years, there has been an increasing trend towards offering endovascular revascularisation (ER) to patients with severe limb ischaemia (SLI). This is frequently justified by asserting that the results of ER are likely to be significantly better now than when B-1 patients were treated. The aim of this study is to compare midterm clinical outcomes in patients undergoing IP ER in the B-1 (1999-2004) with those observed a decade later (2009-2013) in a contemporary series (CS) from an academic tertiary vascular unit. Methods - Patient data was obtained from prospectively gathered computerised B-1 (48 patients) and CS (73 patients) databases. Both groups had a minimum of 3 years of follow up. Patients undergoing IP revascularisation within the 12 months prior to intervention were excluded. The primary outcome measure was amputation free survival (AFS), with secondary outcomes of overall survival (OS), freedom from major lower limb amputation (above ankle), re-intervention, immediate technical success and length of hospital stay during index procedure and 12 months following intervention. Results - Patients in both cohorts were well matched at baseline for age, presence of diabetes mellitus, stroke, myocardial infarction and tissue loss. More patients in BASIL underwent concomitant superficial femoral (60% in BASIL, 37% CS, p=0.01) and above knee popliteal (60% vs. 34%, p=0.005) angioplasty. There was no use of drug eluting technology in either cohort. One patient in B-1 and 4 patients in the CS had a bail out bare metal stent placed in the superficial femoral artery. Immediate technical success improved from 73% in BASIL to 91% in the CS (p=0.01). Despite this, no improvements in AFS (HR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.66-1.54, p=1.0) (see figure), OS (HR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.66-1.63, p=0.9), re-intervention (HR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.31-1.26, p=0.23) or major (above ankle) amputation (HR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.38-1.96, p=0.7) were observed. Median length of hospital stay after index intervention and in the 12 months following intervention was significantly shorter in the CS (p=0.02 and p=0.006 respectively). Conclusion - Despite better technical success, there was no improvement in clinical outcomes between the two cohorts 1999-2004 and 2009-2013. Further randomised controlled trials, such as BEST-CLI (US) [2] and BASIL-2 (UK) [3] are clearly required to define evidence-based revascularisation strategies in patients with SLI. References1.Adam DJ, Beard JD, Cleveland T, Bell J, Bradbury AW, Forbes JF, et al. Bypass versus angioplasty in severe ischaemia of the leg (BASIL): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9501):1925-34.2.Menard MT, Farber A. The BEST-CLI trial: a multidisciplinary effort to assess whether surgical or endovascular therapy is better for patients with critical limb ischemia. Semin Vasc Surg. 2014;27(1): 82-4.3.Popplewell MA, Davies H, Jarrett H, Bate G, Grant M, Patel S, et al. Bypass versus angio plasty in severe ischaemia of the leg - 2 (BASIL-2) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17: 11.
A Comparison of Outcomes in Patients with Infrapopliteal Disease Randomised to Vein Bypass or Plain Balloon Angioplasty in the Bypass Vs. Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Trial

M. A. Popplewell,H. O. B. Davies,J. Narayanswami,M. Renton,A. Sharp,G. Bate,S. Patel,J. Deeks,A. W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.04.020

IF: 6.427

2017-01-01

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract:Objective: The aim was to compare outcomes in a subgroup of patients with infrapopliteal (IP) disease randomised to infrapopliteal vein bypass (VB) or plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in the original BASIL trial.Methods: A comparison of outcomes from patients randomised to VB or PBA undergoing revascularisation for severe limb ischaemia (SLI) because of IP disease with or without femoropopliteal disease. Data were extracted from case report forms from the BASIL trial. The primary outcome was amputation free survival (AFS); secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), 30 day mortality and morbidity, freedom from arterial re-intervention, immediate technical success, repeat and crossover interventions, length of hospital stay, and quality of revascularisation.Results: A total of 104 patients were identified in the BASIL study with IP disease, 56 randomised to IP VB, and 48 to IP PBA. Groups were similar at baseline except for more chronic kidney disease and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in the VB group, and more previous surgical arterial intervention and antihypertensive use in the PBA group. There were no statistically significant differences in AFS or OS; however, clinically important trends were apparent in favour of a VB first strategy. Patients allocated to VB demonstrated significantly quicker relief of rest pain when compared with PBA (p = .005), but no significant differences in improved tissue healing. Median length of index hospital admission was significantly greater in the VB than in the PBA group (18 vs. 10 days, p < .0001) but there was no difference between the two groups in median total hospital stay between randomisation and the primary endpoint (VB 43.5 vs. PBA 42 days).Conclusions: Further randomised trials, like BASIL-2 and BEST-CLI, are required to determine whether patients with severe limb ischaemia who require IP revascularisation and who are suitable for VB should have bypass or endovascular intervention as their primary revascularisation procedure. Crown Copyright (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society for Vascular Surgery. All rights reserved.
Bypass Versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Prospective Cohort Study and the Generalisability of the BASIL-2 Randomised Controlled Trial

Matthew A. Popplewell,Lewis Meecham,Huw O. B. Davies,Lisa Kelly,Tracy Ellis,Gareth R. Bate,Catherine A. Moakes,Andrew W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.09.041

IF: 6.427

2024-01-01

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-2 (BASIL-2) randomised controlled trial has shown that, for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) who require an infrapopliteal (IP) revascularisation a vein bypass (VB) first revascularisation strategy led to a 35% increased risk of major amputation or death when compared with a best endovascular treatment (BET) first revascularisation strategy. The study aims are to place the BASIL-2 trial within the context of the CLTI patient population as a whole and to investigate the generalisability of the BASIL-2 outcome data.METHODS:This was an observational, single centre prospective cohort study. Between 24 June 2014 and 31 July 2018, the BASIL Prospective Cohort Study (PCS) was performed which used BASIL-2 trial case record forms to document the characteristics, initial and subsequent management, and outcomes of 471 consecutive CLTI patients admitted to an academic vascular centre. Ethical approval was obtained, and all patients provided fully informed written consent. Follow up data were censored on 14 December 2022.RESULTS:Of the 238 patients who required an infrainguinal revascularisation, 75 (32%) had either IP bypass (39 patients) or IP BET (36 patients) outside BASIL-2. Seventeen patients were initially randomised to BASIL-2. A further three patients who did not have an IP revascularisation as their initial management were later randomised in BASIL-2. Therefore, 95/471 (20%) of patients had IP revascularisation (16% outside, 4% inside BASIL-2). Differences in amputation free survival, overall survival, and limb salvage between IP bypass and IP BET performed outside BASIL-2 were not subject to hypothesis testing due to the small sample size. Reasons for non-randomisation into the trial were numerous, but often due to anatomical and technical considerations.CONCLUSION:CLTI patients who required an IP revascularisation procedure and were subsequently randomised into BASIL-2 accounted for a small subset of the CLTI population as a whole. For a wide range of patient, limb, anatomical and operational reasons, most patients in this cohort were deemed unsuitable for randomisation in BASIL-2. The results of BASIL-2 should be interpreted in this context.
BAlloon Versus Stenting in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-3 (BASIL-3): Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial

Benjamin D. Hunt,Matthew A. Popplewell,Huw Davies,Lewis Meecham,Hugh Jarrett,Gareth Bate,Margaret Grant,Smitaa Patel,Catherine Hewitt,Lazaros Andronis,Jonathan J. Deeks,Andrew Bradbury,on behalf of the BASIL-3 Collaborative Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1968-6

IF: 2.728

2017-01-01

Trials

Abstract:Severe limb ischaemia (SLI) is defined as the presence of rest pain and/or tissue loss secondary to lower extremity atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease. The superficial femoral and popliteal arteries are the most commonly diseased vessels in such patients and are being increasingly treated using endovascular revascularisation techniques. However, it is currently unknown whether drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons confer additional clinical benefits over more established techniques using plain balloons and bare metal stents, or whether they represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Patients Selected for Infra-Popliteal Bypass or Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia Between 2009 and 2013

Matthew A. Popplewell,Huw O. B. Davies,Lewis Meecham,Gareth Bate,Andrew W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1538574420953949

2020-01-01

Abstract:Introduction: A published subgroup analysis of the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial suggests that, in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) due to infra-popliteal (IP) disease, clinical outcomes are better following vein bypass surgery (BS) than after plain balloon angioplasty (PBA). The aim of the present study is to determine if clinical outcomes following IP revascularization in our unit are concordant with those found in BASIL-1. Methods: We analyzed prospectively gathered data pertaining to 137 consecutive CLTI patients undergoing IP PBA or BS between 2009 and 2013. We compared 30-day morbidity and mortality, days in hospital (index admission and out to 12-months), amputation free survival (AFS), overall survival (OS), limb salvage (LS), and freedom from arterial re-intervention (FFR). Patient outcomes were censored on 1 February 2017, providing a minimum 3 years follow-up. Results: Patients undergoing BS (73/137, 47%) tended to be younger, have less comorbidity, and were more likely to be on best medical therapy (BMT). BS patients spent more days in hospital during the index admission (median 9 vs 5, p = .003), but not out to 12 months (median 15 vs 13, NS). BS patients suffered more 30-day morbidity (36% vs 10%, p < .001), mainly due to infective complications, but not mortality (3.1% vs 6.8%, NS). AFS (p = .001) and OS (p < .001), but not LS or FFR, were better after BS. Conclusions: CLTI patients selected for revascularization by means of IP BS had better long-term outcomes in terms of AFS and OS, but not FFR or LS. Although we await the results of the BASIL-2 trial, current data support the BASIL-1 sub-group analysis which suggests that patients requiring revascularization for IP disease should have BS where possible and that PBA should usually be reserved for patients who are not suitable for BS.
Comparison of Outcomes Following Infrapopliteal Plain Balloon Angioplasty in the BASIL Trial (1999-2004) and in a Contemporary Series (2009-2013)

Matthew A. Popplewell,Huw O. B. Davies,Mary Renton,Gareth Bate,Smitaa Patel,Jonathan J. Deeks,Andrew W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1538574419887594

2019-01-01

Abstract:Objectives: To compare outcomes in patients randomized to infrapopliteal (IP) plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) for chronic limb-threatening ischemia within the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial between 1999 and 2004 with outcomes in consecutive patients undergoing IP PBA at an academic vascular unit a decade later (2009-2013, Contemporary series [CS]). Methods: Individual patient data were obtained from prospective BASIL-1 (48 patients) and CS databases (73 patients). All had a minimum of 3-years of follow-up. Outcomes studied were amputation-free survival (AFS), overall survival (OS), major (above ankle) limb amputation, arterial reintervention, immediate technical success, and length of hospital stay for the index procedure and during the following 12-month period. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4. Results: The BASIL and CS cohorts were well matched for gender, age, diabetes, previous stroke, myocardial infarction and arterial intervention, and presence of tissue loss. More patients in BASIL-1 underwent concomitant treatment of the superficial femoral (60% vs 37%, P = .01) and above knee popliteal (60% vs 34%, P = .005) arteries. Immediate technical success increased from 73% in BASIL-1 to 90% in the CS ( P = .01). Between the two cohorts, there were no differences in AFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-1.54, P = 1.0), OS (HR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.66-1.62, P = .9), major amputation (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.37-1.97, P = .7), or reintervention (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.29-1.27, P = .2). Contemporary series patients spent significantly fewer days in hospital following the index procedure ( P = .02) and also over the following 12 months ( P = .002). Conclusions: Despite improvements in the immediate technical angiographic success of IP PBA between BASIL and the CS, there were no significant improvements in survival outcomes. Results from BASIL-2 and BEST-CLI are required in order to properly define the clinical and cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment in such patients.
Bypass Versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 Trial: Analysis of the Timing and Causes of Death in Participants Randomised to an Infrapopliteal Vein Bypass or Best Endovascular Treatment First Revascularisation Strategy

Andrew W. Bradbury,Jack Hall,Catherine A. Moakes,Matthew Popplewell,Lewis Meecham,Gareth R. Bate,Lisa Kelly,Athanasios Diamantopoulos,Arul Ganeshan,Kim Houlind,Jonas Malmstedt,Jai V. Patel,Athanasios Saratzis,Hany Zayed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.07.029

2024-01-01

Abstract:Objective The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 trial enrolled participants with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infrapopliteal, with or without a femoropopliteal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. Participants randomised to a vein bypass (VB) first revascularisation strategy were over one third more likely than those randomised to a best endovascular treatment (BET) first revascularisation strategy to die from any cause during a median follow up of 40.0 (interquartile range 20.9, 60.6) months. The aim was to describe the timing and causes of death in BASIL-2 as a first step towards trying to better understand why randomisation to a VB first revascularisation strategy was associated with this excess mortality. Methods A 10 person international panel comprising vascular and endovascular surgeons as well as vascular interventional radiologists, who had all been principal investigators in BASIL-2, took part in a modified Delphi consensus exercise to adjudicate the primary cause of death and, in particular, whether the cause was primarily cardiac or non-cardiac. Results In 151/168 deaths (89.9%) the Delphi panel achieved a consensus regarding the cause of death being probably cardiac or non-cardiac. In the BET group, 16/77 deaths (21%) were classified as probably cardiac compared with 32/91 (35%) in the VB group (unadjusted subdistribution hazard ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 – 3.87; unadjusted cause specific hazard ratio 2.15, 95% CI 1.19 – 3.90). At the point of randomisation, 64/344 (18.6%), 37/344 (10.8%), and 40/342 (9%) participants had a previous myocardial infarction (MI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), respectively. There was no evidence of varying treatment effects for cause of death in subgroup analyses of previous PCI, CABG, or MI. Conclusion The excess mortality observed in the VB first revascularisation strategy group in BASIL-2 was largely due to deaths that were adjudicated by the Delphi panel as probably primarily cardiac. These excess cardiac deaths were observed throughout follow up and there was no evidence of non-proportional hazards. Further work is ongoing to try to better understand the reasons for these findings.
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).
Relationship Between Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) and Clinical Outcomes Following Revascularisation for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia in the Bypass Versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 Trial

Akio Kodama,Lewis Meecham,Matthew Popplewell,Gareth Bate,Michael S. Conte,Andrew W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.06.042

IF: 6.427

2020-01-01

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract:Objective: The Global Vascular Guideline on chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) has introduced the Global Limb Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) as a new angiographic scoring system. However, the relationship between GLASS and outcomes following revascularisation has not previously been studied. Methods: Using pre-intervention angiograms the relationship between GLASS and immediate technical failure (ITF), amputation free survival (AFS), limb salvage (LS), overall survival (OS), and freedom from major adverse limb events (FF-MALE) was examined in 377 patients undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT, n = 213) or bypass surgery (BS, n = 164) in the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial (randomised 1999-2004). Results: There was no significant difference in GLASS between cohorts. There was a significant relationship between ITF and GLASS in EVT (I 14%, II 15%, III 28%, p = .049). GLASS was significantly related to AFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% CI 1.01-1.85; p = .042), LS (HR 1.96; 95 % CI 1.12-3.43; p = .018), and FF-MALE (HR 1.49; 95% CI 1.04-1.87; p = .028) in the EVT cohort. In BS patients, there was no relationship between GLASS and these outcomes. FF-MALE was significantly worse after EVT than BS in GLASS II (p = .038) and III (p = .001). Among the subgroup of patients with femoropopliteal (FP) disease (BS, n = 109 or EVT, n = 159), FF-MALE was significantly higher after BS than EVT (p < .001). The superiority of BS over EVT with increasing GLASS FP grade was greater in the analysis of patients using vein grafts. Conclusion: In the BASIL-1 cohort, GLASS is associated with outcomes following EVT but not BS. Although further validation in contemporary CLTI cohorts is required, GLASS seems likely be useful in shared decision making and for stratifying patients in future trials.
A vein bypass first versus a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion (BASIL-2): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

Andrew W Bradbury,Catherine A Moakes,Matthew Popplewell,Lewis Meecham,Gareth R Bate,Lisa Kelly,Ian Chetter,Athanasios Diamantopoulos,Arul Ganeshan,Jack Hall,Simon Hobbs,Kim Houlind,Hugh Jarrett,Suzanne Lockyer,Jonas Malmstedt,Jai V Patel,Smitaa Patel,S Tawqeer Rashid,Athanasios Saratzis,Gemma Slinn,D Julian A Scott,Hany Zayed,Jonathan J Deeks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00462-2

2023-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia is the severest manifestation of peripheral arterial disease and presents with ischaemic pain at rest or tissue loss (ulceration, gangrene, or both), or both. We compared the effectiveness of a vein bypass first with a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy in terms of preventing major amputation and death in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. METHODS:Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 was an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial done at 41 vascular surgery units in the UK (n=39), Sweden (n=1), and Denmark (n=1). Eligible patients were those who presented to hospital-based vascular surgery units with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic disease and who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either vein bypass (vein bypass group) or best endovascular treatment (best endovascular treatment group) as their first revascularisation procedure through a secure online randomisation system. Participants were excluded if they had ischaemic pain or tissue loss considered not to be primarily due to atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease. Most vein bypasses used the great saphenous vein and originated from the common or superficial femoral arteries. Most endovascular interventions comprised plain balloon angioplasty with selective use of plain or drug eluting stents. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Data were collected locally at participating centres. In England, Wales, and Sweden, centralised databases were used to collect information on amputations and deaths. Data were analysed centrally at the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit. The primary outcome was amputation-free survival defined as time to first major (above the ankle) amputation or death from any cause measured in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by monitoring serious adverse events up to 30-days after first revascularisation. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27728689. FINDINGS:Between July 22, 2014, and Nov 30, 2020, 345 participants (65 [19%] women and 280 [81%] men; median age 72·5 years [62·7-79·3]) with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned: 172 (50%) to the vein bypass group and 173 (50%) to the best endovascular treatment group. Major amputation or death occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·35 [95% CI 1·02-1·80]; p=0·037). 91 (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group died (adjusted HR 1·37 [95% CI 1·00-1·87]). In both groups the most common causes of morbidity and death, including that occurring within 30 days of their first revascularisation, were cardiovascular (61 deaths in the vein bypass group and 49 in the best endovascular treatment group) and respiratory events (25 deaths in the vein bypass group and 23 in the best endovascular treatment group; number of cardiovascular and respiratory deaths were not mutually exclusive). INTERPRETATION:In the BASIL-2 trial, a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy was associated with a better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths in the best endovascular treatment group. These data suggest that more patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion should be considered for a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy. FUNDING:UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Programme.
Contemporary (2009-2014) Clinical Outcomes after Femoropopliteal Bypass Surgery for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia Are Inferior to Those Reported in the UK Bypass Versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Trial (1999-2004)

Lewis Meecham,Matthew Popplewell,Gareth Bate,Smitaa Patel,Andrew W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2018.08.197

IF: 4.86

2019-01-01

Journal of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:Background: Bypass surgery (BS) remains the gold standard revascularization strategy in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) owing to infrainguinal disease. The Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial showed that, in patients with CLTI who survived for 2 years or more, BS resulted in better clinical outcomes. Despite this finding, there has been an increasing trend toward an endovascular-first approach to infrainguinal CLTI. Our aim was to investigate whether changes in practice have impacted the clinical outcomes of BS in our unit 10 years after BASIL-1. Methods: Data for patients who underwent femoropopliteal (FP) BS in BASIL-1 (1999-2004) were retrieved from trial case record forms. The comparator contemporary series (CS) comprised all patients undergoing FP BS for CLTI in our unit between 2009 and 2014. Demographic and clinical outcome data on patients in the CS were collected from the prospectively collected hospital electronic notes. Anatomic patterns of disease in the BASIL-1 and CS cohorts were scored using the Bollinger and GLASS criteria. Statistical analysis was performed in SAS v9.4. Results: There were 128 patients from BASIL-1 and 50 patients in the CS. Baseline age, gender, affected limb, and diabetes prevalence were similar, as were days spent in hospital out to 12 months and length of follow-up. BASIL-1 patients were more likely to be current smokers (P = .000) and had a higher creatinine (P = .04). The 30-day morbidity and mortality were higher in BASIL-1 (45.3% vs 22%; P = .004). There was no significant difference between BASIL-1 and CS with regard to run-off Bollinger (37.7 vs 32.1; P = .167) and IP GLASS (0 vs 0; P = .390) scores, with both groups having a median of two runoff vessels. Amputation-free survival (62% vs 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.93; P = .007), limb salvage (85% vs 69%; HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.14-4.68; P = .02), overall survival (69% vs 35%; HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.00-2.74; P = .05) and major adverse limb events (67% vs 47%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.15-3.22; P = .01) were all significantly better in BASIL-1. Conclusions: Although 30-day mortality and morbidity were significantly lower, all of the examined longer term clinical outcomes after FP BS were significantly worse in the CS group a decade on from BASIL-1. Further research in the form of prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials is urgently required to determine if the CS data reported herein are generalizable to current vascular surgical practice and, if so, to determine the reasons for these unexpected outcomes.
A Comparison of Contemporary Clinical Outcomes Following Femoro-Popliteal Plain Balloon Angioplasty and Bypass Surgery for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia.

Lewis Meecham,Mathew A. Popplewell,Gareth R. Bate,Smitaa Patel,Andrew W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744211004656

IF: 0.9

2021-01-01

Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract:INTRODUCTION:Despite the BASIL-1 trial concluding that bypass surgery (BS) was superior to plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in terms of longer-term amputation free (AFS) and overall survival (OS), CLTI patients are increasingly offered an endovascular-first revascularization strategy. This study investigates whether the results of BASIL-1 are still relevant to current practice by comparing femoro-popliteal (FP) BS with PBA in a series of CLTI patients treated in our unit 10 years after BASIL-1 (1999-2004).METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed prospectively gathered hospital data pertaining to 279 patients undergoing primary FP BS or PBA for CLTI in the period 2009 to 2014. We report baseline characteristics, 30-day morbidity and mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and long-term AFS, limb salvage (LS), OS, major adverse limb events (MALE), and freedom from re-intervention (FFR).RESULTS:234 (84%) and 45 (16%) patients underwent PBA and BS respectively. PBA patients were significantly older (77 vs 71 years, P = 0.001) and more likely to be female (45% vs 28%, P = 0.026). Bollinger and GLASS anatomic scores were significantly more severe in the BS group. Technical success was better for BS (100% vs 87%, P = 0.007). Index hospital stay was shorter for PBA (9.1 vs 15.6 days, P = 0.035) but there was no difference in hospital days or admissions over the next 12 months. AFS (HR 1.00), LS (HR 1.44), OS (HR 0.81), MALE (HR 1.25) and FFR (HR = 1.00) were not significantly different between PBA and BS.CONCLUSION:Important clinical outcomes following FP BS and PBA for CLTI have not changed significantly in our unit in the 10 years following the BASIL-1 trial. BASIL-1 therefore remains relevant to our current practice and should inform our approach to the management of CLTI going forward.
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)
Clinical Outcomes Following Femoro-Popliteal Angioplasty for Severe Limb Ischaemia (SLI) Are Worse Now (2009-2014) Than They Were in the Basil-1 Trial (1999-2004)

Lewis Meecham,Smitaa Patel,Gareth Bate,Mathew Popplewell,Andrew W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.06.653

IF: 6.427

2019-01-01

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract:Introduction - Despite the only available level 1 evidence (from the UK NIHR HTA- funded BASIL-1 trial, B-1) showing superior outcomes from bypass, in recent years, there has been an increasing trend towards treating patients with severe limb ischaemia (SLI) due to femoro-popliteal (FP) disease by angioplasty+/-stenting. This is frequently justified by claiming the results of endovascular revascularisation (ER) are likely to be significantly better now than in 1999-2004, when B-1 patients were randomised. Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes in 218 patients randomised to FP ER in B-1 with those observed in 100 (the first and last 50) patients undergoing FP ER at a UK academic vascular unit 2009-2013 (Contemporary Series, CS). Methods - Individual patient data were obtained from prospectively gathered computerised B-1 and CS databases. Median (range) follow-up was 3.4 (0-7.5) and 3.3 (0-6.9) years for B-1 and CS respectively. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4. Results - Patients were well matched in terms of mean (range) age years (B1: 73 (46-96) vs CS: 76 (53-98), gender (male = 54% vs 46%), and other baseline variables. Clinical outcomes in B-1 were significantly better in terms of amputation free survival (AFS, 54% vs 45%, HR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.50-0.95, p=0.02); limb salvage (LS, 84% vs 73%, HR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, p=0.03) and overall survival (OS, 63% vs 52%, HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.97, p=0.03). Conclusion - Despite claims that clinical outcomes from FP ER have improved, AFS, LS and OS were significantly better in B-1 (1999-2004) than in a CS (2009-2013). Data from further on-going randomised controlled trials (BASIL-2, BASIL-3 and BEST-CLI) are urgently needed to better define the role of ER in the management of SLI.
Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial: A survival prediction model to facilitate clinical decision making

Andrew W Bradbury,Donald J Adam,Jocelyn Bell,John F Forbes,F Gerry R Fowkes,Ian Gillespie,Charles Vaughan Ruckley,Gillian M Raab,BASIL Trial Participants,P Bachoo,J Brittenden,G Cooper,S Cross,J Engeset,J Hussey,E Macauley,P Thorpe,G Stewart,K Osbourne,J Moss,P Nicholl,S Silverman,J Wingate,D Adam,B Balasubramanian,A Bradbury,P Crowe,J Ferrando,M Gannon,M Henderson,K Makhdoomi,D Mosquera,T Wilmink,T Buckenham,R Chalmers,R Dawson,S Fraser,I Gillespie,S Ingram,A Jenkins,J Murie,Z Raza,N Jones,D Lambert,T Lees,R Owen,J Rose,G Stansby,M Wyatt,D Byrne,R Edwards,A MacKay,R Quin,P Rogers,D Gilmour,D Leiberman,D McCarter,A Reid,S Dodds,M Cleesby,A Jewkes,B Jones,C Nelson,A Parnell,P Bell,A Bolia,N Chalmers,I Mohan,V Smyth,M Walker,M Collins,A Garnham,G Mackie,P Stonebridge,J Houston,M Armon,J Clarke,J Cockburn,J Colin,S Girling,S Scott-Barrett,P Wilson,Y Wilson,J Beard,T Cleveland,P Chan,P Gaines,S Lonsdale,J Michaels,A Nassif,R Niar,J Rochester,S Thomas,R Wood,A Ashour,V Battacharya,Nudawi,G Timmons,A Howd,M Fleet,H Ireland,K McBride,A Milne,A Turner,G Ferguson,M Onwudike,R Razzaq,J Tuck,D Baker,G Hamilton,F Hyint,A Platts,J Tibballs,A Watkinson,K Choji,R Grimley,A Jayatunga,R Patel,J Renny,S Shiralkar,A Wilinski,M Alner,M Duddy,A Edwards,M Simms,S Smith,R Vohra,G MacBain,R Johnstone,G Urquhart,G Welch,D Durrans,B Gwynn,C Willard,M Thompson,R Morgan,J Patel,J Scott,I Spark,K Allen,A Khan,J Holland,R Ashleigh,S Butterfield,R England,C McCollum,A Nasim,M Welch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2010.01.077

Abstract:Background: An intention-to-treat analysis of the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial showed that in patients with severe lower limb ischemia (SLI) due to infrainguinal disease who survived for 2 years after intervention, initial randomization to a bypass surgery (BSX)-first vs balloon angioplasty (BAP)-first revascularization strategy was associated with improvements in subsequent overall survival (OS) and amputation-free survival (AFS) of about 7 and 6 months, respectively. This study explored the value of baseline factors to estimate the likelihood of survival to 2 years for the trial cohort (Cox model) and for individual BASIL trial patients (Weibull model) as an aid to clinical decision making. Methods: Of 452 patients presenting to 27 United Kingdom hospitals, 228 were randomly assigned to a BSX-first and 224 to a BAP-first revascularization strategy. Patients were monitored for at least 3 years. Baseline factors affecting the survival of the entire cohort were examined with a multivariate Cox model. The chances of survival at 1 and 2 years for patients with given baseline characteristics were estimated with a Weibull parametric model. Results: At the end of follow-up, 172 patients (38%) were alive without major limb amputation of the trial leg, and 202 (45%) were alive. Baseline factors that were significant in the Cox model were BASIL randomization stratification group, below knee Bollinger angiogram score, body mass index, age, diabetes, creatinine level, and smoking status. Using these factors to define five equally sized groups, we identified patients with 2-year survival rates of 50% to 90%. The factors that contributed to the Weibull predictive model were age, presence of tissue loss, serum creatinine, number of ankle pressure measurements detectable, maximum ankle pressure measured, a history of myocardial infarction or angina, a history of stroke or transient ischemia attack, below knee Bollinger angiogram score, body mass index, and smoking status. Conclusions: Patients in the BASIL trial were at high risk of amputation and death regardless of revascularization strategy. However, baseline factors can be used to stratify those risks. Furthermore, within a parametric Weibull model, certain of these factors can be used to help predict outcomes for individuals. It may thus be possible to define the clinical and anatomic (angiographic) characteristics of SLI patients who are likely-and not likely-to live for >2 years after intervention. Used appropriately in the context of the BASIL trial outcomes, this may aid clinical decision making regarding a BSX- or BAP-first revascularization strategy in SLI patients like those randomized in BASIL.
Vein bypass first vs. best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to infra-popliteal disease: the BASIL-2 RCT

Catherine A Moakes,Andrew W Bradbury,Zainab Abdali,Gareth R Bate,Jack Hall,Hugh Jarrett,Lisa Kelly,Jesse Kigozi,Suzanne Lockyer,Lewis Meecham,Smitaa Patel,Matthew Popplewell,Gemma Slinn,Jonathan J Deeks,BASIL-2 Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/YTFV4524

Abstract:Background: Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia with ischaemic pain and/or tissue loss. Objective: To examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a vein bypass-first compared to a best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy in preventing major amputation or death. Design: Superiority, open, pragmatic, multicentre, phase III randomised trial. Setting: Thirty-nine vascular surgery units in the United Kingdom, and one each in Sweden and Denmark. Participants: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease who required an infra-popliteal revascularisation, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure, to restore limb perfusion. Interventions: A vein bypass-first or a best endovascular treatment-first infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation strategy. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was amputation-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, major amputation, further revascularisation interventions, major adverse limb event, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Methods: Participants were randomised to a vein bypass-first or a best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy. The original sample size of 600 participants (247 events) was based on a hazard ratio of 0.66 with amputation-free survival rates of 0.72, 0.62, 0.53, 0.47 and 0.35 in years 1-5 in the best endovascular treatment-first group with 90% power and alpha at p = 0.05. The sample size was revised to an event-based approach as a result of increased follow-up time due to slower than anticipated recruitment rates. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. A cost-effectiveness analysis was employed to estimate differences in total hospital costs and amputation-free survival between the groups. Additionally, a cost-utility analysis was carried out and the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years, 2 and 3 years after randomisation were used. Results: Between 22 July 2014 and 30 November 2020, 345 participants were randomised, 172 to vein bypass-first and 173 to best endovascular treatment-first. Non-amputation-free survival occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass-first group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment-first group [adjusted hazard ratio 1.35 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.80); p = 0.037]. Ninety-one (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass-first group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment-first group died [adjusted hazard ratio 1.37 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.87)]. Over follow-up, the economic evaluation discounted results showed that best endovascular treatment-first was associated with £1690 less hospital costs compared to vein bypass-first. The cost utility analysis showed that compared to vein bypass-first, best endovascular treatment-first was associated with £224 and £2233 less discounted hospital costs and 0.016 and 0.085 discounted quality-adjusted life-year gain after 2 and 3 years from randomisation. Limitations: Recruiting patients to the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 trial was difficult and the target number of events was not achieved. Conclusions: A best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy was associated with better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths. Overall, the economic evaluation results suggest that best endovascular treatment-first dominates vein bypass-first in the cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis as it was less costly and more effective than a vein bypass-first strategy. Future work: The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 investigators have a data sharing agreement with the BEst Surgical Therapy in patients with Chronic Limb threatening Ischaemia investigators. One output of this collaboration will be an individual patient data meta-analysis. Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27728689. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/45) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 65. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Procedural and 12-Month In-Hospital Costs of Primary Infra-Popliteal Bypass Surgery, Infrapopliteal Best Endovascular Treatment, and Major Lower Limb Amputation for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia

Matthew A. Popplewell,Lazaros Andronis,Huw O. B. Davies,Lewis Meecham,Lisa Kelly,Gareth Bate,Andrew W. Bradbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2021.07.232

IF: 4.86

2022-01-01

Journal of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:Objective: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a growing global problem due to the widespread use of tobacco and increasing prevalence of diabetes. Although the financial consequences are considerable, few studies have compared the relative cost-effectiveness of different CLTI management strategies. The Bypass vs Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 trial is randomizing patients with CLTI to primary infrapopliteal (IP) vein bypass surgery (BS) or best endovascular treatment (BET) and includes a comprehensive within-trial cost-utility analysis. The aim of this study is to compare over a 12-month time horizon, the costs of primary IP BS, IP best endovascular treatment (BET), and major limb major amputation (MLLA) to inform the BASIL-2 cost-utility analysis. Methods: We compared procedural human resource (HR) costs and total in-hospital costs for the index admission, and over the following 12-months, in 60 consecutive patients undergoing primary IP BS (n = 20), IP BET (n = 20), or MLLA (10 transfemoral and 10 transtibial) for CLTI within the BASIL prospective cohort study. Results: Procedural HR costs were greatest for BS (BS 2551; pound 95% confidence interval [CI], 1934- pound 2807 pound vs MLLA 1130; pound 95% CI, 1046- pound 1297 pound vs BET 329; pound 95% CI, 242- pound 390; pound P <.001, Kruskal-Wallis) due to longer procedure duration and greater staff requirement. With regard to the index admission, MLLA was the most expensive due to longer hospital stay (MLLA 13,320; pound 95% CI, 8986- pound 18,616 pound vs BS 8714; pound 95% CI, 6097- pound 11,973 pound vs BET 4813; pound 95% CI, 3529- pound 6097; pound P <.001, Kruskal-Wallis). The total cost of the index admission and in-hospital care over the following 12 months remained least for BET (MLLA 26,327; pound 95% CI, 17,653- pound 30,458 pound vs BS 20,401; pound 95% CI, 12,071- pound 23,926 pound vs BET 12,298; pound 95% CI, 6961- pound 15,439; pound P <.001, Kruskal-Wallis). Conclusions: Over a 12-month time horizon, MLLA and IP BS are more expensive than IP BET in terms of procedural HR costs and total in-hospital costs. These economic data, together with quality of life data from BASIL-2, will inform the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for different CLTI management strategies within the BASIL-2 cost-utility analysis.
Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Patients with Chronic Limb-threatening Ischemia Requiring Infrapopliteal Interventions

Kristina A. Giles,Alik Farber,Matthew T. Menard,Michael S. Conte,Brian W. Nolan,Jeffrey J. Siracuse,Michael Strong,Gheorghe Doros,Maarit Venermo,Ezana Azene,Kenneth Rosenfield,Richard J. Powell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2024.05.049

IF: 4.86

2024-06-24

Journal of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suitable single segment great saphenous vein who underwent infrapopliteal revascularization for CLTI, open bypass surgery was associated with a lower incidence of MALE or death and less major amputation compared to endovascular intervention. Amputation free survival was similar between the groups. Further investigations into differences in comorbidities, anatomic extent, and lesion complexity are needed to explain differences between the BEST-CLI and BASIL-2...

surgery,peripheral vascular disease

Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial: A description of the severity and extent of disease using the Bollinger angiogram scoring method and the TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II classification.

Bypass Versus Angio Plasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg - 2 (BASIL-2) Trial: Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial

Responses to the Main Critiques of the Bypass Versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 Trial

Mid-Term Limb Salvage Following Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Severe Limb Ischaemia Due to Infra-Popliteal Disease: A Comparison of the Basil Trial (1999-2004) with a Contemporary Series (2009-2013)

A Comparison of Outcomes in Patients with Infrapopliteal Disease Randomised to Vein Bypass or Plain Balloon Angioplasty in the Bypass Vs. Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Trial

Bypass Versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Prospective Cohort Study and the Generalisability of the BASIL-2 Randomised Controlled Trial

BAlloon Versus Stenting in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-3 (BASIL-3): Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Patients Selected for Infra-Popliteal Bypass or Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia Between 2009 and 2013

Comparison of Outcomes Following Infrapopliteal Plain Balloon Angioplasty in the BASIL Trial (1999-2004) and in a Contemporary Series (2009-2013)

Bypass Versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 Trial: Analysis of the Timing and Causes of Death in Participants Randomised to an Infrapopliteal Vein Bypass or Best Endovascular Treatment First Revascularisation Strategy

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

Relationship Between Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) and Clinical Outcomes Following Revascularisation for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia in the Bypass Versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 Trial

Contemporary (2009-2014) Clinical Outcomes after Femoropopliteal Bypass Surgery for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia Are Inferior to Those Reported in the UK Bypass Versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Trial (1999-2004)

A Comparison of Contemporary Clinical Outcomes Following Femoro-Popliteal Plain Balloon Angioplasty and Bypass Surgery for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia.

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

Clinical Outcomes Following Femoro-Popliteal Angioplasty for Severe Limb Ischaemia (SLI) Are Worse Now (2009-2014) Than They Were in the Basil-1 Trial (1999-2004)

Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial: A survival prediction model to facilitate clinical decision making

Vein bypass first vs. best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to infra-popliteal disease: the BASIL-2 RCT

Procedural and 12-Month In-Hospital Costs of Primary Infra-Popliteal Bypass Surgery, Infrapopliteal Best Endovascular Treatment, and Major Lower Limb Amputation for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia

Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Patients with Chronic Limb-threatening Ischemia Requiring Infrapopliteal Interventions