Association Between Diagnosis-to-Limb Revascularization Time and Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: Insights From the CLIPPER Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The extent and consequences of ischemia in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) may change rapidly, and delays from diagnosis to revascularization may worsen outcomes. We sought to describe the association between time from diagnosis to endovascular lower extremity revascularization (diagnosis-to-limb revascularization [D2L] time) and clinical outcomes in outpatients with CLTI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the CLIPPER cohort, comprising patients between 66 and 86 years old diagnosed with CLTI betweeen 2010 and 2019, we used Medicare claims data to identify patients who underwent outpatient endovascular revascularization within 180 days of diagnosis. We described the risk-adjusted association between D2L time and clinical outcomes. Among 1 130 065 patients aged between 66 and 86 years with CLTI, 99 221 (8.8%) underwent outpatient endovascular lower extremity revascularization within 180 days of their CLTI diagnosis. Among patients with D2L time <30 days, there was no association between D2L time and all-cause death or major lower extremity amputation. However, among patients with D2L time >30 days, each additional 10-day increase in D2L time was associated with a 2.5% greater risk of major amputation (hazard ratio, 1.025 [95% CI, 1.014-1.036]). There was no association between D2L time and all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: A delay of >30 days from CLTI diagnosis to lower extremity endovascular revascularization was associated with an increased risk of major lower extremity amputation among patients undergoing outpatient endovascular revascularization. Improving systems of care to reduce D2L time could reduce amputations.

Polymer-based drug-eluting stent treatment extends the time to reintervention for patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal artery disease: clinical evidence and potential economic value.

Aim: Use long-term follow-up data from the IMPERIAL study to determine whether drug-eluting polymer-based nitinol stent treatment can delay the time to repeat intervention for femoropopliteal artery disease and how such a delay may result in cost savings in a value-based episode of care. Patients & methods: The IMPERIAL randomized controlled trial was an international study of a paclitaxel-eluting polymer-coated stent (Eluvia, Boston Scientific, MA, USA) versus a polymer-free paclitaxel-coated stent (Zilver PTX, Cook Corporation, IN, USA) for treating lesions of the femoropopliteal arterial segment. Study patients (n = 465) had symptomatic lower limb ischemia. Safety and efficacy assessments were performed through 5 years. Mean time to first reintervention was calculated in post-hoc analysis for patients who underwent a clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) through 3 or 5 years following the index procedure. To simulate potential cost savings associated with differential CD-TLR burden over time, a cost-avoidance analysis using input parameters from IMPERIAL and US 100% Medicare standard analytical files was developed. Results: Among patients with a first CD-TLR through 3 years of follow-up, mean time to reintervention was 5.5 months longer (difference 166 days, 95% CI: 51, 282 days; p = 0.0058) for patients treated with Eluvia (n = 56) than for those treated with Zilver PTX (n = 30). Through the 5-year study follow-up period, CD-TLR rates were 29.3% (68/232) for Eluvia and 34.2% (39/114) for Zilver PTX (p = 0.3540) and mean time to first reintervention exceeded 2 years for patients treated with Eluvia at 737 days versus 645 days for the Zilver PTX group (difference 92 days, 95% CI: -85, 269 days; p = 0.3099). Simulated savings considering reinterventions occurring over 1 and 5 years following initial use of Eluvia over Zilver PTX were US $1,395,635 and US $1,531,795, respectively, when IMPERIAL CD-TLR rates were extrapolated to 1000 patients. Conclusion: IMPERIAL data suggest initial treatment with Eluvia extends the time patients spend without undergoing reintervention. This extension may be associated with cost savings in relevant time frames.

Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Treated With Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: In the BEST-CLI trial (Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia), a prespecified secondary objective was to assess the effects of revascularization strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia were randomized to surgical bypass (Bypass) or endovascular intervention (Endo) in 2 parallel trials. Cohort 1 included patients with single-segment great saphenous vein; cohort 2 included those lacking suitable single-segment great saphenous vein. HRQoL was assessed over the trial duration using Vascular Quality-of-Life (VascuQoL), European Quality-of-Life-5D (EQ-5D), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Summary (SF-12 MCS), Utility Index Score (SF-6D R2), and numeric rating scales of pain. HRQoL was summarized by cohort and compared within and between groups using mixed-model linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 1193 and 335 patients in cohorts 1 and 2 with a mean follow-up of 2.9 and 2.0 years, respectively, were analyzed. In cohort 1, HRQoL significantly improved from baseline to follow-up for both groups across all measures. For example, mean (SD) VascuQoL scores were 3.0 (1.3) and 3.0 (1.2) for Bypass and Endo at baseline and 4.7 (1.4) and 4.8 (1.5) over follow-up. There were significant group differences favoring Endo when assessed with VascuQoL (difference, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.02]; P=0.02), SF-12 MCS (difference, -1.03 [95% CI, -1.89 to -0.18]; P=0.02), SF-6D R2 (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.02 to -0.001]; P=0.03), numeric rating scale pain at present (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.49]; P=0.03), usual level during previous week (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48]; P=0.02), and worst level during previous week (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.56]; P=0.04). There was no difference between treatment arms on the basis of EQ-5D (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.004]; P=0.12) or SF-12 PCS (difference, -0.41 [95% CI, -1.2 to 0.37]; P=0.31). In cohort 2, HRQoL also significantly improved from baseline to the end of follow-up for both groups based on all measures, but there were no differences between Bypass and Endo on any measure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia deemed eligible for either Bypass or Endo, revascularization resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL. In patients with an available single-segment great saphenous vein for bypass, but not among those without one, Endo was statistically superior on some HRQoL measures; however, these differences were below the threshold of clinically meaningful difference.

Diversity in randomized clinical trials for peripheral artery disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Significant race and sex disparities exist in the prevalence, diagnosis, and outcomes of peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, clinical trials evaluating treatments for PAD often lack representative patient populations. This systematic review aims to summarize the demographic representation and enrollment strategies in clinical trials of lower-extremity endovascular interventions for PAD. METHODS: Following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched multiple sources (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov, WHO clinical trial registry) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT protocols, and peer-reviewed journal publications of RCTs conducted between January 2012 and December 2022. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize trial characteristics, publication or study protocol characteristics, and the reporting of demographic characteristics. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between demographic characteristics and certain trial characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 2,374 records were identified. Of these, 59 met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 35 trials, 14 publications, and 10 protocols. Information regarding demographic representation was frequently missing. While all 14 trial publications reported age and sex, only 4 reported race/ethnicity, and none reported socioeconomic or marital status. Additionally, only 4 publications reported clinical outcomes by demographic characteristics. Meta-regression analysis revealed that 6% more women were enrolled in non-European trials (36%) than in European trials (30%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review highlight potential issues that may compromise the reliability and external validity of study findings in lower-extremity PAD RCTs when applied to the real-world population. Addressing these issues is crucial to enhance the generalizability and impact of clinical trial results in the field of PAD, ultimately leading to improved clinical outcomes for patients in underrepresented populations. REGISTRATION: The systematic review methodology was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022378304).

Implementing methods in the ELEGANCE registry to increase diversity in clinical research.

OBJECTIVE: Women and underrepresented minorities (URMs) who are at an increased risk of presenting with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) and have different responses to treatment compared with non-Hispanic White males yet are underrepresented in PAD research. METHODS: ELEGANCE is a global, prospective, multi-center, post-market registry of PAD patients treated with drug-eluting device that aims to enroll at least 40% women and 40% URMs. The study design incorporates strategies to increase enrollment of women and URMs. Inclusion criteria are age ≥18 years and treatment with any commercially available Boston Scientific Corporation drug-eluting device marketed for peripheral vasculature lesions; exclusion criterion is life expectancy <1 year. RESULTS: Of 750 patients currently enrolled (951 lesions) across 39 sites, 324 (43.2%) are female and 350 (47.3%) are URMs (21.6% Black, 11.2% Asian, 8.5% Hispanic/Latino, and 5.3% other). Rutherford classification is distributed differently between sexes (P = .019). Treatment indication differs among race/ethnicity groups (P = .003). Chronic limb-threatening ischemia was higher for Black (38.3%) and Hispanic/Latino (28.1%) patients compared with non-Hispanic White (21.8%) and Asian patients (21.4%). De-novo stenosis was higher in Asian patients (92.3%) compared with Black, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic/Latino patients (72.2%, 68.7%, and 77.8%, respectively; P < .001). Mean lesion length was longest for Black patients (162.7 mm), then non-Hispanic White (135.2 mm), Asian (134.8 mm), and Hispanic/Latino patients (128.1 mm; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of data from the ELEGANCE registry show that differences exist in baseline disease characteristics by sex and race/ethnicity; these may be the result of other underlying factors, including time to diagnosis, burden of undermanaged comorbidities, and access to care.

Diversity in clinical trial inclusion for peripheral artery disease lower extremity endovascular interventions: a systematic review protocol.

Aim: This review provides a study protocol for a systematic review of peripheral artery disease (PAD) clinical trials to examine the eligibility criteria, demographic representation, and enrollment strategies among PAD patients undergoing lower extremity (LE) endovascular interventions. Methods: This systematic review will be conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration methodology for systematic reviews and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Eligible studies will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between January 2012 and December 2022. The primary outcome will be a description and summary of the frequency of the reporting of demographic characteristics. The feasibility of a meta-analysis or meta-regression will be explored, but if determined to be infeasible, the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline will be followed for the reporting of findings. Discussion: The findings may help to quantify existing inequities in clinical trial participation that may be addressed through optimizing enrollment strategies for future PAD trials. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022378304).

Primary results of the SAVAL randomized trial of a paclitaxel-eluting nitinol stent versus percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in infrapopliteal arteries.

BACKGROUND: Effective and durable options for infrapopliteal artery revascularization for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are limited. METHODS: The SAVAL trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of patients with CLTI and infrapopliteal artery lesions with total lesion length ⩽ 140 mm, stenosis ⩾ 70%, and Rutherford category 4-5 assigned 2:1 to treatment with the SAVAL self-expandable paclitaxel drug-eluting stent (DES) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with an uncoated balloon. The primary effectiveness endpoint was primary vessel patency (i.e., core lab-adjudicated duplex ultrasound-based flow at 12 months in the absence of clinically driven target lesion revascularization or surgical bypass of the target lesion). The primary safety endpoint was the 12-month major adverse event (MAE)-free rate; MAEs were defined as a composite of above-ankle index limb amputation, major reintervention, and 30-day mortality. The endpoints were prespecified for superiority (effectiveness) and noninferiority (safety) at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment (N = 130 DES, N = 71 PTA). Target lesion length was 68.1 ± 35.2 mm for the DES group and 68.7 ± 49.2 mm for the PTA group, and 31.0% and 27.6% of patients, respectively, had occlusions. The 12-month primary patency rates were 68.0% for the DES group and 76.0% for the PTA group (Psuperiority = 0.8552). The MAE-free rates were 91.6% and 95.3%, respectively (Pnoninferiority = 0.0433). CONCLUSION: The SAVAL trial did not show benefit related to effectiveness and safety with the nitinol DES compared with PTA in infrapopliteal artery lesions up to 140 mm in length. Continued innovation to provide optimal treatments for CLTI is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03551496).

Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance During Peripheral Vascular Interventions: Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Costs From the Japanese Perspective.

PURPOSE: The value of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization procedures is incompletely understood. Moreover, data on long-term clinical outcomes and costs are limited. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and costs between IVUS and contrast angiography alone in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization procedures in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective comparative analysis was performed using the Japanese Medical Data Vision insurance claims database. All patients undergoing revascularization for peripheral artery disease (PAD) between April 2009 and July 2019 were included. Patients were followed until July 2020, death, or a subsequent revascularization procedure for PAD. Two patient groups were compared: one undergoing IVUS imaging or the other contrast angiography alone. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and limb events, including all-cause-mortality, endovascular thrombolysis, subsequent revascularization procedures for PAD, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and major amputations. Total health care costs were documented over the follow-up and compared between groups, using a bootstrap method. RESULTS: The study included 3956 patients in the IVUS group and 5889 in the angiography alone group. Intravascular ultrasound was significantly associated with reduced risk of a subsequent revascularization procedure (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.25 [0.22-0.28]) and major adverse cardiac and limb events (0.69 [0.65-0.73]). The total costs were significantly lower in the IVUS group, with a mean cost saving over follow-up of $18 173 [$7 695-$28 595] per patient. CONCLUSION: The use of IVUS during peripheral revascularization provides superior long-term clinical outcomes at lower costs compared with contrast angiography alone, warranting wider adoption and fewer barriers to IVUS reimbursement for patients with PAD undergoing routine revascularization. CLINICAL IMPACT: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization has been introduced to improve the precision of the procedure. However, questions over the benefit of IVUS in terms of long-term clinical outcome and over cost have limited its use in everyday clinical practice. This study, performed in a Japanese health insurance claims database, demonstrates that use of IVUS provides a superior clinical outcome over the long term at a lower cost compared to angiography alone. These findings should encourage clinicians to use IVUS in routine peripheral vascular revascularization procedures and encourage providers to reduce barriers to use.

Hypoechoic Halo Imaging Findings Following Femoropopliteal Artery Stent Implantation: Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Hypoechoic peri-stent areas in duplex ultrasonography (DUS) (ie, "halo") have been noted following femoropopliteal artery stenting. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, and potential safety implications of hypoechoic halos identified with DUS following stent implantation in the IMPERIAL (ELUVIA Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Zilver PTX Stent) and EMINENT (Trial Comparing ELUVIA Versus Bare Metal Stent in Treatment of Superficial Femoral and/or Proximal Popliteal Artery) trials. METHODS: The IMPERIAL and EMINENT studies of femoropopliteal artery stenting included polymer-based drug-eluting stent, nonpolymer drug-coated stent, and bare metal stent treatment arms. A dedicated DUS protocol was implemented for core laboratory assessment of halo presence at study follow-up visits. Logistic regressions were used to investigate risk factors for a halo sign and its impact on clinically driven target lesion revascularization and primary patency. RESULTS: Diagnostic DUS imaging from 659 patients was obtained at time points ranging from 6 months to 5 years post-stent implantation. Halo prevalence ranged from 20% to 35% of patients with diagnostic DUS and was present at all time intervals. Halos were identified surrounding all stent types. In analyses of patients with diagnostic imaging from at least 2 visits, halo presence typically persisted, with occasional cases of regression and development at later times. No statistically significant association was found for halo status (ie, halo vs no halo) on 1-year clinically driven target lesion revascularization (OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.70-2.30; P = 0.4240) or primary patency (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.43-1.07; P = 0.0927). CONCLUSIONS: A hypoechoic halo following a femoropopliteal stent procedure is a common occurrence associated with all studied stent types. The presence of a halo appears to be benign with no associated clinical sequelae or effect on target vessel revascularization rates within 1 year of stent implantation.

Consensus minimum core data elements adapted to peripheral vascular intervention in the drug-eluting era: Consensus report from the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) Pathways "LEAN" working group.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) initiated the Pathways Program to provide a transparent, collaborative forum in which to pursue insights into multiple unresolved questions on benefit-risk of paclitaxel-coated devices, including understanding the basis of the mortality signal, without a demonstrable potential biological mechanism, and whether the late mortality signal could be artifact intrinsic to multiple independent prospective randomized data sources that did not prespecify death as a long-term end point. In response to the directive, the LEAN-Case Report Form working group focused on enhancements to the RAPID Phase I Minimum Core Data set through the addition of key clinical modifiers that would be more strongly linked to longer-term mortality outcomes after peripheral arterial disease intervention in the drug-eluting device era, with the goal to have future mortality signals more accurately examined.

Racial Differences in Presentation and Outcomes After Peripheral Arterial Interventions: Insights From the NCDR-PVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: We assess the rates of device use and outcomes by race among patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral arterial intervention using the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Peripheral Vascular Intervention (PVI) registry. METHODS: Patients who underwent PVI between April 2014 and March 2019 were included. Socioeconomic status was evaluated using the Distressed Community Index score for patients' zip codes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with utilization of drug-eluting technologies, intravascular imaging, and atherectomy. Among patients with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, we compared 1-year mortality, rates of amputation, and repeat revascularizations. RESULTS: Of 63 150 study cases, 55 719 (88.2%) were performed in White patients and 7431 (11.8%) in Black patients. Black patients were younger (67.9 versus 70.0 years), had higher rates of hypertension (94.4% versus 89.5%), diabetes (63.0% versus 46.2%), less likely to be able to walk 200 m (29.1% versus 24.8%), and higher Distressed Community Index scores (65.1 versus 50.6). Black patients were provided drug-eluting technologies at a higher rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.06-1.23]) with no difference in atherectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.91-1.05]) or intravascular imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.22]) use. Black patients experienced a lower rate of acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.72-0.88]). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked analyses of 7429 cases (11.8%), Black patients were significantly less likely to have surgical (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.17-0.96]) or repeat PVI revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.59]) at 1 year compared with White patients. There was no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [0.8-1.4]) or major amputation (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.8-7.6]) between Black and White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients presenting for PVI were younger, had higher prevalence of comorbidities and lower socioeconomic status. After adjustment, Black patients were less likely to have surgical or repeat PVI revascularization after the index PVI procedure.

Baseline modern medical management in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: The use of optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) has not been well-studied. The Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI study (BEST-CLI) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health comparing revascularization strategies in patients with CLTI. We evaluated the use of guideline-based OMT among patients with CLTI at the time of their enrollment into the trial. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee defined OMT criteria related to blood pressure and diabetic management, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medication use, and smoking status for patients enrolled in BEST-CLI. Status reports indicating adherence to OMT were provided to participating sites at regular intervals. Baseline demographic characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, and use of OMT at trial entry were evaluated for all randomized patients. A linear regression model was used to identify the relationship of predictors to the use of OMT. RESULTS: At the time of randomization (n = 1830 total enrolled), 87% of patients in BEST-CLI had hypertension, 69% had diabetes, 73% had hyperlipidemia, and 35% were currently smoking. Adherence to four OMT components (controlled blood pressure, not currently smoking, use of one lipid-lowering medication, and use of an antiplatelet agent) was modest. Only 25% of patients met all four OMT criteria; 38% met three, 24% met two, 11% met only one, and 2% met none. Age ≥80 years, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and Hispanic ethnicity were positively associated, whereas Black race was negatively associated, with the use of OMT. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients in BEST-CLI did not meet OMT guideline-based recommendations at time of entry. These data suggest a persistent major gap in the medical management of patients with advanced peripheral atherosclerosis and CLTI. Changes in OMT adherence over the course of the trial and their impact on clinical outcomes and quality of life will be assessed in future analyses.

Cost Burden and Cost Influencers of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval among Medicare Beneficiaries with Acute Venous Thromboembolism.

PURPOSE: To examine the frequency, costs, and cost influencers of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) placements and retrievals among a national sample of patients using Medicare data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the U.S. Medicare 100% database, a nationally representative sample of all U.S. patients aged ≥65 years, from 2014 through 2020. Procedures and clinical characteristics were identified from the diagnosis and procedure codes on Medicare claims. Beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE) were identified and followed to obtain data on IVCF placements and retrievals. Data on the costs of the index IVCF procedures and any subsequent IVCF placements and retrievals were obtained. Multivariate models were used to estimate the impact of patient and clinical characteristics on costs. RESULTS: Among 501,216 patients with newly diagnosed VTE, 4,995 (1%) received an IVCF placement; of these, 1,215 (24.3%) had a retrieval procedure. Beneficiaries with IVCF placements and retrievals differed from a demographic and clinical perspective than from those without. Costs varied by the site of service, VTE acuity, and VTE type. Cost influencers included age, race, census region, service location, and VTE type. CONCLUSIONS: IVCF placement costs were driven by baseline patient characteristics (age, race, geographic residence, acute VTE diagnosis, and inpatient site of service), whereas retrieval costs were driven by age and deep vein thrombosis diagnosis. Strategies to mitigate the retrieval costs or the need to retrieve IVCFs may reduce the overall cost burden of IVCFs.

Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) require revascularization to improve limb perfusion and thereby limit the risk of amputation. It is uncertain whether an initial strategy of endovascular therapy or surgical revascularization for CLTI is superior for improving limb outcomes. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we enrolled 1830 patients with CLTI and infrainguinal peripheral artery disease in two parallel-cohort trials. Patients who had a single segment of great saphenous vein that could be used for surgery were assigned to cohort 1. Patients who needed an alternative bypass conduit were assigned to cohort 2. The primary outcome was a composite of a major adverse limb event - which was defined as amputation above the ankle or a major limb reintervention (a new bypass graft or graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis) - or death from any cause. RESULTS: In cohort 1, after a median follow-up of 2.7 years, a primary-outcome event occurred in 302 of 709 patients (42.6%) in the surgical group and in 408 of 711 patients (57.4%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.79; P<0.001). In cohort 2, a primary-outcome event occurred in 83 of 194 patients (42.8%) in the surgical group and in 95 of 199 patients (47.7%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06; P = 0.12) after a median follow-up of 1.6 years. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups in the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BEST-CLI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02060630.).

One-Year Follow-Up of Vascular Intervention Trials Disrupted by the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Use-Case landscape.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on cardiovascular clinical research. The decision-making and state of study operations in cardiovascular trials 1-year after interruption has not been previously described. METHODS: In the spring of 2020, we created a pandemic impact task force to develop a landscape of use case scenarios from 17 device trials of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) interventions. In conjunction with publicly available (clinictrials.gov) study inclusion criteria, primary endpoints and study design, information was shared for this use-case landscape by trial leadership and data owners. RESULTS: A total of 17 actively enrolling trials (9 CAD and 8 PAD) volunteered to populate the use case landscape. All 17 were multicenter studies (12 in North America and 5 international). Fifteen studies were industry-sponsored, of which 13 were FDA approved IDEs, one was PCORI-sponsored and two were sponsored by the NIH. Enrollment targets ranged from 150 to 9000 pts. At the time of interruption, 5 trials were <20 % enrolled, 9 trials were 50-80 % enrolled and 3 trials were >80 % enrolled. At 1 year, the majority of studies were continuing to enroll in the context of more sporadic but ongoing pandemic activity. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year from the first surge interruptions, most trials had resumed enrollment. Trials most heavily interrupted were trials early in enrollment and those trials not able to pivot to virtual patient and site visits. Further work is needed to determine the overall impact on vascular intervention trials disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Appropriate Use of Intravascular Ultrasound During Arterial and Venous Lower Extremity Interventions.

BACKGROUND: There has been growing use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during lower extremity arterial and venous revascularization. Observational data suggest that the use of IVUS can improve periprocedural and long-term outcomes, but largescale prospective data remain limited. Consensus opinion regarding the appropriate use of IVUS during peripheral intervention is needed. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this consensus document is to provide guidance on the appropriate use of IVUS in various phases of peripheral arterial and venous interventions. METHODS: A 12-member writing committee was convened to derive consensus regarding the appropriate clinical scenarios for use of peripheral IVUS. The group iteratively created a 72-question survey representing 12 lower extremity arterial interventional scenarios. Separately, a 40-question survey representing 8 iliofemoral venous interventional scenarios was constructed. Clinical scenarios were categorized by interventional phases: preintervention, intraprocedure, and postintervention optimization. Thirty international vascular experts (15 for each survey) anonymously completed the survey instrument. Results were categorized by appropriateness using the median value and disseminated to the voting panel to reevaluate for any disagreement. RESULTS: Consensus opinion concluded that IVUS use may be appropriate during the preintervention phase for evaluating the etiology of vessel occlusion and plaque morphology in the iliac and femoropopliteal arteries. IVUS was otherwise rated as appropriate during iliac and femoropopliteal revascularization in most other preintervention scenarios, as well as intraprocedural and postprocedural optimization phases. IVUS was rated appropriate in all interventional phases for the tibial arteries. For iliofemoral venous interventions, IVUS was rated as appropriate in all interventional phases. CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus can help define clinical procedural scenarios in which peripheral IVUS may have value during lower extremity arterial and venous intervention while additional prospective data are collected.