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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) England), 2024-10, Vol.28 (65), p.1-72 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
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 |