AI Article Synopsis

  • - A study compared patient outcomes for chronic limb-threatening ischemia between two groups: one treated with femoropopliteal plain balloon angioplasty (FP-PBA) and selective bare metal stenting (CS, 2009-2014) and another group from the Bypass vs Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg trial (B1, 1999-2004).
  • - Results showed CS patients were older and had more hospital admissions, with some undergoing more extensive endovascular procedures, while BMS were used significantly more in the CS group.
  • - Critically, both amputation-free survival and overall survival rates were significantly worse for the CS group compared to B1, despite no differences in

Article 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) by means 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).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2021.06.475DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

chronic limb-threatening
12
limb-threatening ischemia
12
femoropopliteal plain
8
plain balloon
8
balloon angioplasty
8
contemporary series
8
revascularization strategy
8
patients
8
patients treated
8
limb salvage
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!