A Cost-Consequence Analysis Comparing Balloon-Expandable Covered Stents for the Management of Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease.

PURPOSE: To compare procedural and long-term costs associated with the use of Balloon-Expandable Covered Stents (BECS) in the management of Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease (AIOD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-consequence model was developed to simulate the intra- and post-operative management of patients with AIOD from the perspective of private health-payers. The study assessed the costs of the LifeStream (BD, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey), iCAST/Advanta V12 (Getinge, Goteborg, Sweden), BeGraft Peripheral (Bentley, Hechingen, Germany), and Viabahn Balloon Expandable (VBX) (W.L. Gore, Flagstaff, Arizona) BECS devices. Device costs were identified from the Australian Prosthesis List, whereas clinical outcomes of BECS were estimated from a systematic review of the literature. Costs were calculated over 24 and 36 month time horizons and reported in US dollars. RESULTS: Long-term, per-patient cost of each device at 24 and 36 months was $6253/$6634 for the LifeStream; $6359/$6869 for the iCAST/Advanta V12; $4806 (data available to 24 months) for the BeGraft Peripheral; and $4839/$5046 for the Viabahn VBX, respectively. Most of the cost difference was attributed to the number of stents required per treated limb and frequency of clinically-driven target lesion revascularization events. CONCLUSIONS: Best-available clinical evidence and economic modeling demonstrates that the BeGraft Peripheral and Viabahn VBX were of similar cost and the least costly options at 24 months, whereas at 36 months, the lowest cost BECS option for the treatment of AIOD was the Viabahn VBX. CLINICAL IMPACT: This analysis supports economically informed decision-making for health-payers managing systems that care for patients with AIOD. Stent length and avoiding reintervention were identified as key areas of cost-saving for future BECS development.

The role of sealants for achieving anastomotic hemostasis in vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: During vascular interventions, connections that link arteries, veins, or synthetic grafts, which are known as an 'anastomosis', may be necessary. Vascular anastomoses can bleed from the needle holes that result from the creation of the anastomoses. Various surgical options are available for achieving hemostasis, or the stopping of bleeding, including the application of sealants directly onto the bleeding vessels or tissues. Sealants are designed for use in vascular surgery as adjuncts when conventional interventions are ineffective and are applied directly by the surgeon to seal bleeding anastomoses. Despite the availability of several different types of sealants, the evidence for the clinical efficacy of these hemostatic adjuncts has not been definitively established in vascular surgery patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of sealants as adjuncts for achieving anastomotic site hemostasis in patients undergoing vascular surgery. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist conducted systematic searches of the following databases: the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register via the Cochrane Register of Studies; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid ; and CINAHL via EBSCO. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for clinical trials. Reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews were also searched. The latest search date was 6 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared fibrin or synthetic sealant use with alternative interventions (e.g. manual compression, reversal of anticoagulation) for achieving anastomotic-site hemostasis in vascular surgery procedures. We included participants who underwent the creation of an anastomosis during vascular surgery. We excluded non-vascular surgery patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We have used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were time to hemostasis, failure of hemostatic intervention, and intraoperative blood loss. Our secondary outcomes were operating time, death from bleeding complications up to 30 days, postoperative bleeding up to 30 days, unplanned return to the operating room for bleeding complications management up to 30 days, quality of life, and adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We found 24 randomized controlled trials that included a total of 2376 participants who met the inclusion criteria. All trials compared sealant use with standard care controls, including oxidized cellulose, gelatin sponge, and manual compression. All trials were at high risk of performance bias, detection bias, and other sources of bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for risk of bias concerns, inconsistency, imprecision and possible publication bias. Combining data on time to hemostasis showed that sealant use may reduce the mean time to hemostasis compared to control (mean difference (MD) -230.09 seconds, 95% confidence interval (CI) -329.24 to -130.94; P < 0.00001; 7 studies, 498 participants; low-certainty evidence). Combining data on failure of hemostatic intervention showed that sealant use may reduce the rate of failure compared to control, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; P < 0.00001; 17 studies, 2120 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not detect any clear differences between the sealant and control groups for intraoperative blood loss (MD -32.69 mL, 95% CI -96.21 to 30.83; P = 0.31; 3 studies, 266 participants; low-certainty evidence); operating time (MD -18.72 minutes, 95% CI -40.18 to 2.73; P = 0.09; 4 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence); postoperative bleeding (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; P = 0.09; 9 studies, 1216 participants; low-certainty evidence), or unplanned return to the operating room (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.69; P = 0.16; 8 studies, 721 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported death from bleeding or quality of life outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on meta-analysis of 24 trials with 2376 participants, our review demonstrated that sealant use for achieving anastomotic hemostasis in vascular surgery patients may result in reduced time to hemostasis, and may reduce rates of hemostatic intervention failure, although the evidence is very uncertain, when compared to standard controls. Our analysis showed there may be no differences in intraoperative blood loss, operating time, postoperative bleeding up to 30 days, and unplanned return to the operating room for bleeding complications up to 30 days. Deaths and quality of life could not be analyzed. Limitations include the risk of bias in all studies. Our review has demonstrated that using sealants may reduce the time required to achieve hemostasis and the rate of hemostatic failure. However, a significant risk of bias was identified in the included studies, and future trials are needed to provide unbiased data and address other considerations such as cost-effectiveness and adverse events with sealant use.

Current Status of and Future Prospects for Drug-Eluting Stents and Scaffolds in Infrapopliteal Arteries.

Background: Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia can be a debilitating disease and may result in limb amputation if untreated. Atherosclerotic disease of the infra-popliteal arteries is particularly challenging to treat due to the small caliber of the vessels and the heavy burden of atherosclerotic plaque. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty is the conventional first-line approach and is advantageous due to its minimal invasiveness, repeatability, and cost-effectiveness but is limited by high rates of elastic recoil, dissection, and short- to mid-term re-stenosis. Methods: This review analyses the growing body of published and presented clinical data from multiple randomised controlled trials that have investigated the role of coronary drug-eluting stents in the treatment of infrapopliteal disease. Results: Coronary drug-eluting stents demonstrate superior primary patency compared with angioplasty and/or bare metal stenting alone but are limited to application in short-segment disease and have not been widely adopted due to the nature of the permanent implant. Conclusions: Newer devices like drug-eluting resorbable scaffolds are promising as they allow the restoration of vessel wall vasomotion without a residual foreign body and can be used to treat longer, complex lesions.

Evaluation of an Infrapopliteal Drug-Eluting Resorbable Scaffold: Design Methodology for the LIFE-BTK Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a severe condition characterized by rest pain and ischemic tissue loss that affects 5% to 10% of people with peripheral artery disease. In the United States, there are few Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for the primary treatment of arteries below-the-knee (BTK). Unfortunately, all suffer from high restenosis rates due to intimal hyperplasia, elastic recoil, and untreated dissection because of a lack of scaffolding. The Esprit BTK system is a resorbable, drug-eluting scaffold device with the potential to address an unmet need in people suffering from CLTI because of infrapopliteal atherosclerosis. The LIFE-BTK (pivotaL Investigation of saFety and Efficacy of drug-eluting resorbable scaffold treatment-Below The Knee) randomized controlled trial (RCT) is a prospectively designed premarket evaluation of the Esprit BTK drug-eluting resorbable scaffold used in the treatment of those patients. Methods: The LIFE-BTK trial enrolled 261 subjects with CLTI for the RCT and a further 7 subjects for a pharmacokinetic substudy. The objective of the RCT was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Esprit BTK scaffold compared to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of limb salvage and primary patency at 12 months. The primary safety end point is freedom from major adverse limb events and peri-operative death at 6 months and 30 days, respectively. Clinical follow-up care is planned for 5 years. Conclusions: Novel devices must be tested in RCTs to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared to the standard of care if we are to improve outcomes for this challenging group of patients.