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

Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia with ischaemic pain and/or tissue loss. 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. Superiority, open, pragmatic, multicent...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) England), 2024-10, Vol.28 (65), p.1-72
Hauptverfasser: Moakes, Catherine A, Bradbury, Andrew W, Abdali, Zainab, Bate, Gareth R, Hall, Jack, Jarrett, Hugh, Kelly, Lisa, Kigozi, Jesse, Lockyer, Suzanne, Meecham, Lewis, Patel, Smitaa, Popplewell, Matthew, Slinn, Gemma, Deeks, Jonathan J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia with ischaemic pain and/or tissue loss. 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. Superiority, open, pragmatic, multicentre, phase III randomised trial. Thirty-nine vascular surgery units in the United Kingdom, and one each in Sweden and Denmark. 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. A vein bypass-first or a best endovascular treatment-first infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation strategy. 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. 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  = 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. 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);  = 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-fir
ISSN:2046-4924
1366-5278
2046-4924
DOI:10.3310/YTFV4524