Endovascular therapy versus bypass for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in a real-world practice.

OBJECTIVES: The recent BEST-CLI study showed that bypass was superior to endovascular therapy (ET) in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) deemed suitable for either approach who had an available single segment great saphenous vein (GSV). However, the superiority of bypass among those lacking GSV was not established. We aimed to examine comparative treatment outcomes from a real-world CLTI population using the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI)-Medicare-Linked database. METHODS: We queried the VQI-Medicare-Linked database for patients with CLTI who underwent first-time lower extremity revascularization (2010-2019). We performed two one-to-one propensity score matchings (PSM): ET vs. bypass with GSV (BWGSV) and ET vs. bypass with prosthetic graft (BWPG). The primary outcome was amputation-free survival (AFS). Secondary outcomes were freedom from amputation and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Three cohorts were queried: BWGSV (N=5,279, 14.7%), BWPG (N=2,778, 7.7%), and ET (N=27,977, 77.6%). PSM produced two sets of well-matched cohorts: 4,705 pairs of ET vs. BWGSV and 2,583 pairs of ET vs. BWPG. In the matched cohorts of ET vs. BWGSV, ET was associated with greater hazards of death (Hazard Ratio [HR]=1.34, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.25-1.43; P<.001), amputation (HR=1.30, 95% CI, 1.17-1.44; P<.001) and amputation/death (HR=1.32, 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P<.001) up to 4-years. In the matched cohorts of ET vs. BWPG, ET was associated with greater hazards of death up to 2-years (HR=1.11, 95% CI, 1.00-1.22; P=.042) but not amputation or amputation/death. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world multi-institutional Medicare-linked PSM analysis, we found that BWGSV is superior to ET in terms of OS, freedom from amputation and AFS up to 4-years. Moreover, BWPG was superior to ET in terms of OS up to 2-years. Our study confirms the superiority of BWGSV to ET as observed in the BEST-CLI trial.

Characterization of cardiovascular serious adverse events after bypass or endovascular revascularization for limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular complications after revascularization to treat chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are a major concern that guides treatment. Our goal was to assess periprocedural cardiac and vascular serious adverse events (SAEs) in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: BEST-CLI was a prospective randomized trial comparing surgical (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization for patients with CLTI. Thirty-day SAEs, classified as cardiac or vascular, were analyzed. Adverse events are defined as serious when they affect safety in the trial, require prolonged hospitalization, result in significant disability or incapacitation, are life-threatening, or result in death. Interventions were analyzed in a per protocol fashion. RESULTS: In the BEST-CLI trial, 850 OPEN and 896 ENDO interventions were evaluated. Forty (4.7%) and 34 (3.8%) patients experienced at least one cardiac SAE after OPEN and ENDO intervention, respectively (P = .35). Overall, there were 53 cardiac SAEs (0.06 per patient) after OPEN and 40 (0.045 per patient) after ENDO interventions. Cardiac SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as related to ischemia (50.9%), arrhythmias (17%), heart failure (15.1%), arrest (13.2%), and heart block (3.8%); in the ENDO arm, they were classified as ischemia (47.5%), heart failure (17.5%), arrhythmias (15%), arrest (15%), and heart block (5%). Approximately half of SAEs were classified as severe for both OPEN and ENDO. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 30.2% and 25% in the OPEN and ENDO arms, respectively (P = .2). Vascular SAEs occurred in 58 (6.8%) and 86 (9.6%) of patients after OPEN and ENDO revascularization, respectively (P = .19). In total, there were 59 (0.07 per patient) and 87 (0.097 per patient) vascular SAEs after OPEN and ENDO procedures. Vascular SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as distal ischemia/infection (44.1%), bleeding (16.9%), occlusive (15.3%), thromboembolic (15.3%), cerebrovascular (5.1%), and other (3.4%); in the ENDO arm, they were distal ischemia/infection (40.2%), occlusive (31%), bleeding (12.6%), thromboembolic (8%), cerebrovascular (1.1%), and other (4.6%). SAEs were classified as severe for OPEN in 45.8% and ENDO in 46%. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 23.7% and 35.6% in the OPEN and ENDO arms (P = .35), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing OPEN and ENDO revascularization experienced similar degrees of cardiac and vascular SAEs. The majority were not related to the index intervention, but approximately half were severe.

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.

Common Criticisms and Rebuttals of the Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia (BEST-CLI) Trial.

The Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia trial was a landmark trial which provides high-quality data for the decision-making regarding the treatment of chronic-limb threatening ischemia. Overall, the trial suggests that in patients with adequate greater saphenous vein conduit, bypass surgery should be offered as a first line treatment given superior outcomes. In this article, we outline the common critiques of the trial, followed by responses to provide a deeper understanding of the strengths and limitations of this important trial.

Secondary interventions following open vs endovascular revascularization for chronic limb threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia experience a high burden of target limb reinterventions. We analyzed data from the Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) randomized trial comparing initial open bypass (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) treatment strategies, with a focus on reintervention-related study endpoints. METHODS: In a planned secondary analysis, we examined the rates of major reintervention, any reintervention, and the composite of any reintervention, amputation, or death by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1 with suitable single-segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], n = 1434; cohort 2 lacking suitable SSGSV, n = 396). We also compared the cumulative number of major and all index limb reinterventions over time. Comparisons between treatment arms within each cohort were made using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: In cohort 1, assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of a major limb reintervention (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.49; P < .001), any reintervention (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .001), or any reintervention, amputation, or death (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78; P < .001). Findings were similar in cohort 2 for major reintervention (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84; P = .007) or any reintervention (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98; P = .04). In both cohorts, early (30-day) limb reinterventions were notably higher for patients assigned to ENDO as compared with OPEN (14.7% vs 4.5% of cohort 1 subjects; 16.6% vs 5.6% of cohort 2 subjects). The mean number of major (mean events per subject ratio [MR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.58; P < .001) or any target limb reinterventions (MR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .001) per year was significantly less in the OPEN arm of cohort 1. The mean number of reinterventions per limb salvaged per year was lower in the OPEN arm of cohort 1 (MR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57; P < .001 and MR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79; P < .001 for major and all, respectively). The majority of index limb reinterventions occurred during the first year following randomization, but events continued to accumulate over the duration of follow-up in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention is common following revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Among patients deemed suitable for either approach, initial treatment with open bypass, particularly in patients with available SSGSV conduit, is associated with a significantly lower number of major and minor target limb reinterventions.

Contemporary outcomes of surgical decompression for functional popliteal entrapment syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Functional popliteal entrapment syndrome (FPES) is an under-recognized source of leg pain caused by dynamic compression of the popliteal vessels by surrounding musculature in the absence of anatomic abnormality. Late recognition and difficulty capturing this entity across imaging modalities can lead to significant morbidity in an often young and active patient population. Surgical outcomes and optimal diagnostic strategies remain uncertain. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing surgical decompression for FPES at an academic medical center between 2018 and 2022. Preoperative symptoms, patient characteristics, imaging, operative details, and follow-up were captured. The primary outcome was symptomatic improvement at last clinic visit. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic improvement at 6 months and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 24 extremities (16 patients) were included. The mean ± standard deviation age was 23.3 ± 6.4 years and 75.0% of patients were female. The median symptom duration before decompression was 27 months (interquartile range, 10.7-74.6 months). Preoperative symptom severity in the affected extremity was as follows: 33.3% limited from peak exercise, 25% unable to exercise, and 41.7% with debilitating symptoms that affected activities of daily living. Preoperative imaging with provocative maneuvers included duplex ultrasound (87.5%), magnetic resonance angiography (100%), and digital subtraction angiography (100%). Using digital subtraction angiography as the gold standard, the sensitivity for detection of FPES was 85.7% for duplex examination and 58.3% for magnetic resonance angiography. The median follow-up was 451 days (interquartile range, 281-635 days). Most patients demonstrated durable improvement in the affected extremity, with 29.2% realizing complete resolution of symptoms and 37.5% reporting symptomatic improvement at last clinic visit for a total of 66.7%; 20.8% had initial improvement, but developed recurrent symptoms and were found to have elevated compartment pressures consistent with chronic exertional compartment syndrome and were treated with formal fasciotomy. Repeat decompression was required in one extremity (4.2%) owing to recurrent symptoms. Two patients (8.3%) had minimal or no improvement in their affected extremity and workup for the cause of continued discomfort was ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in diagnosis of FPES are common. Provocative maneuvers until replication of symptoms across multiple imaging modalities may be necessary to reliably identify the disease process. Surgical decompression improved or completely resolved symptoms in two-thirds of extremities. Treating physicians should maintain suspicion for comorbid chronic exertional compartment syndrome, especially if symptoms recur or persist after decompression.

Developmental or Procedural Vena Cava Interruption and Venous Thromboembolism: A Review.

The inferior vena cava (IVC) and superior vena cava are the main conduits of the systemic venous circulation into the right atrium. Developmental or procedural interruptions of vena cava might predispose to stasis and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) distal to the anomaly and may impact the subsequent rate of pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to review the various etiologies of developmental or procedural vena cava interruption and their impact on venous thromboembolism. A systematic search was performed in PubMed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines per each clinical question. For management questions with no high-quality evidence and no mutual agreements between authors, Delphi methods were used. IVC agenesis is the most common form of congenital vena cava interruption, is associated with an increased risk of DVT, and should be suspected in young patients with unexpected extensive bilateral DVT. Surgical techniques for vena cava interruption (ligation, clipping, and plication) to prevent PE have been largely abandoned due to short-term procedural risks and long-term complications, although survivors of prior procedures are occasionally encountered. Vena cava filters are now the most commonly used method of procedural interruption, frequently placed in the infrarenal IVC. The most agreed-upon indication for vena cava filters is for patients with acute venous thromboembolism and coexisting contraindications to anticoagulation. Familiarity with different forms of vena cava interruption and their local and systemic adverse effects is important to minimize complications and thrombotic events.

Investigator attitudes on equipoise and practice patterns in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: There has been significant variability in practice patterns and equipoise regarding treatment approach for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). We aimed to assess treatment preferences of Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) investigators prior to and following the trial. METHODS: An electronic 60-question survey was sent to 1180 BEST-CLI investigators in 2022, after trial conclusion and before announcement of results. Investigators' preferences were assessed across clinical scenarios for both open (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization strategies. Vascular surgeon (VS) surgical and ENDO preferences were compared with a 2010 survey administered to prospective investigators before trial funding. RESULTS: For the 2022 survey, the response rate was 20.2% and was comprised of VSs (76.3%), interventional cardiologists (11.4%) and interventional radiologists (11.6%). The majority (72.6%) were in academic practice and 39.1% were in practice for >20 years. During initial CLTI work-up, 65.8%, 42.6%, and 55.9% of respondents always or usually ordered an arterial duplex, computed tomography angiography, and vein mapping, respectively. The most common practice distribution between ENDO and OPEN procedures was 70/30. Postoperatively, a majority reported performing routine duplex surveillance of vein bypass (99%), prosthetic bypass (81.9%), and ENDO interventions (86%). A minority reported always or usually using the wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI) criteria (25.8%), GLASS (8.3%), and a risk calculator (14.8%). More than one-half (52.9%) agreed that the statement "no bridges are burned with an ENDO-first approach" was false. Intervention choice was influenced by availability of the operating room or ENDO suite, personal schedule, and personal skill set in 30.1%, 18.0%, and 45.9% of respondents, respectively. Most respondents reported routinely using paclitaxel-coated balloons (88.1%) and stents (67.5%); however, 73.3% altered practice when safety concerns were raised. Among surgeons, 17.8%, 2.9%, and 10.3% reported performing >10 annual alternative autogenous vein bypasses, composite vein composite vein bypasses, and bypasses to pedal targets, respectively. Among all interventionalists, 8%, 24%, and 8% reported performing >10 annual radial access procedures, pedal or tibial access procedures, and pedal loop revascularizations. The majority (89.1%) of respondents felt that CLTI teams improved care; however, only 23.2% had a defined team. The effectiveness of the teamwork at institutions was characterized as highly effective in 42.5%. When comparing responses by VSs to the 2010 survey, there were no changes in preferred treatment based on Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) II classification or conduit preference. In 2022, OPEN surgery was preferred more for a popliteal occlusion. For clinical scenarios, there were no differences except a decreased proportion of respondents who felt there was equipoise for major tissue loss for major tissue loss (43.8% vs 31.2%) and increased ENDO choice for minor tissue loss (17.6% vs 30.8%) (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of practice patterns among vascular specialists treating CLTI. The majority of investigators in BEST-CLI had experience in both advanced OPEN and ENDO techniques and represent a real-world sample of technical expertise. Over the course of the decade of the BEST-CLI trial, there was overall similar equipoise among VSs.

Perioperative complications following open or endovascular revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Anticipated perioperative morbidity is an important factor for choosing a revascularization method for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Our goal was to assess systemic perioperative complications of patients treated with surgical and endovascular revascularization in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: BEST-CLI was a prospective randomized trial comparing open (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization strategies for patients with CLTI. Two parallel cohorts were studied: Cohort 1 included patients with adequate single-segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV), whereas Cohort 2 included those without SSGSV. Data were queried for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE-composite myocardial infarction, stroke, death), non-serious (non-SAEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) (criteria-death/life-threatening/requiring hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization/significant disability/incapacitation/affecting subject safety in trial) 30 days after the procedure. Per protocol analysis was used (intervention received without crossover), and risk-adjusted analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 1367 patients (662 OPEN, 705 ENDO) in Cohort 1 and 379 patients (188 OPEN, 191 ENDO) in Cohort 2. Thirty-day mortality in Cohort 1 was 1.5% (OPEN 1.8%; ENDO 1.3%) and in Cohort 2 was 1.3% (2.7% OPEN; 0% ENDO). MACE in Cohort 1 was 4.7% for OPEN vs 3.13% for ENDO (P = .14), and in Cohort 2, was 4.28% for OPEN and 1.05% for ENDO (P = .15). On risk-adjusted analysis, there was no difference in 30-day MACE for OPEN vs ENDO for Cohort 1 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-2.64; P = .16) or Cohort 2 (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 0.48-9.88; P = .31). The incidence of acute renal failure was similar across interventions; in Cohort 1 it was 3.6% for OPEN vs 2.1% for ENDO (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.85-3.12; P = .14), and in Cohort 2, it was 4.2% OPEN vs 1.6% ENDO (HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 0.75-10.8; P = .12). The occurrence of venous thromboembolism was low overall and was similar between groups in Cohort 1 (OPEN 0.9%; ENDO 0.4%) and Cohort 2 (OPEN 0.5%; ENDO 0%). Rates of any non-SAEs in Cohort 1 were 23.4% in OPEN and 17.9% in ENDO (P = .013); in Cohort 2, they were 21.8% for OPEN and 19.9% for ENDO (P = .7). Rates for any SAEs in Cohort 1 were 35.3% for OPEN and 31.6% for ENDO (P = .15); in Cohort 2, they were 25.5% for OPEN and 23.6% for ENDO (P = .72). The most common types of non-SAEs and SAEs were infection, procedural complications, and cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: In BEST-CLI, patients with CLTI who were deemed suitable candidates for open lower extremity bypass surgery had similar peri-procedural complications following either OPEN or ENDO revascularization: In such patients, concern about risk of peri-procedure complications should not be a deterrent in deciding revascularization strategy. Rather, other factors, including effectiveness in restoring perfusion and patient preference, are more relevant.

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.

Relationship between WIfI stage and quality of life at revascularization in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: The WIfI (Wound, Ischemia, foot Infection) stage measures the extent of wounds, ischemia, and foot infection in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) and has been associated with the risk of major amputation. Patients with CLTI have impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be multifactorial. We hypothesized that the severity of the limb threat (WIfI stage) would be associated with poor HRQoL among patients with CLTI presenting for revascularization. METHODS: The dataset of the BEST-CLI (best endovascular versus best surgical therapy in patients with CLTI) trial, a prospective, randomized trial comparing open and endovascular revascularization strategies, was queried for HRQoL assessments at patient enrollment. The HRQoL assessments included (1) Vascular Quality of Life; (2) 12-item short form survey (SF-12), containing the utility index score (short-form six-dimension R2 utility index, incorporating physical, emotional, and mental well-being) and mental and physical components; and (3) the EQ-5D. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify the independent associations with the baseline HRQoL assessments. RESULTS: A total of 1568 patients with complete WIfI data were analyzed, of whom 71.5% were men. The WIfI distribution was 35.5% with stage 4, 29.6% with stage 3, 28.6% with stage 2, and 6.3% with stage 1. Patients presenting with WIfI stage 4, compared with stage 1 to 3, were more often men (74.9% vs 69.6%) and current smokers (25.4% vs. 17.6%), had had end-stage renal disease (13.3% vs 8.5%) and diabetes (83.6% vs 60.2%), were not independently ambulatory (56.8% vs 38.5%), and had had higher median morbidity scores (4 vs 3; P < .05 for all). On multivariable analysis, WIfI stage 4, compared with stage 1 to 3, was associated with lower SF-12 mental component scale scores (estimate, -2.43; 95% confidence interval, -3.73 to -1.13; P < .001) and short-form six-dimension R2 utility index scores (estimate, -0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.03 to 0.001; P = .04). The WIfI stage was not independently associated with the baseline Vascular Quality of Life, SF-12 physical component scale, or EQ-5D assessments. CONCLUSIONS: WIfI stage was independently associated with poorer quality of life because of mental, rather than physical, health for patients with CLTI. Clinicians should be aware of the burden of mental stress borne by those with the greatest limb impairment.

Central concepts for randomized controlled trials and other emerging trial designs.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are widely considered to provide the highest-quality evidence for the comparative efficacy and safety of competing clinical strategies. The strength of using RCTs for causal inference is derived from random treatment assignment and prospective data collection. Randomization eliminates confounding at the time of treatment group assignment, achieving exchangeability of the baseline study groups, such that they are the same, on average, except for the study intervention. Prospective data collection helps ensure that eligibility assessment, treatment assignment, and the start of follow-up are aligned temporally. Temporal alignment prevents biases that are common in observational research (eg, immortal time bias). In ideal settings, the results of an RCT provide the average causal effect of the intervention on the selected outcomes in the study population. Although observational research can estimate similar causal effects, observational designs require more assumptions and more advanced analytic frameworks than an RCT designed to answer the same question. Emerging trial designs, also discussed here, seek to address certain limitations of traditional RCT designs. The purpose of this review was to provide a broad overview of the central concepts in RCT design, implementation, conduct, and data analysis.

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.).

Contemporary indications for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the endovascular era.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the emergence of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as the most common approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, open aneurysm repair (OAR) remains an important option. This study seeks to define the indications for OAR in the EVAR era and how these indicatioxns effect outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of all OAR at a single institution from 2004 to 2019. Preoperative computed tomography scans and operative records were assessed to determine the indication for OAR. These reasons were categorized into anatomical contraindications, systemic factors (connective tissue disorders, contraindication to contrast dye), and patient or surgeon preference (patients who were candidates for both EVAR and OAR). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: We included 370 patients in the analysis; 71.6% (265/370) had at least one anatomic contraindication to EVAR and 36% had two or more contraindications. The most common anatomic contraindications were short aortic neck length (51.6%), inadequate distal seal zone (19.2%), and inadequate access vessels (15.7%). The major perioperative complication rate was 18.1% and the 30-day mortality was 3.0%. No single anatomic factor was identified as a predictor of perioperative complications. Sixty-one patients (16.5%) underwent OAR based on patient or surgeon preference; these patients were younger, had lower incidences of coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and were less likely to require suprarenal cross-clamping compared with patients who had anatomic and/or systemic contraindications to EVAR. The patient or surgeon preference group had a lower incidence of perioperative major complications (8.2% vs 20.1%; P = .034), shorter length of stay (6 days vs 8 days; P < .001) and no 30-day mortalities. The multivariable adjusted risk for 15-year mortality was lower for patient or surgeon preference patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.80; P = .007) compared with those anatomic or systemic contraindications. CONCLUSIONS: Within a population of patients who did not meet instruction for use criteria for EVAR, no single anatomic contraindication was a marker for worse outcomes with OAR. Patients who were candidates for both aortic repair approaches but elected to undergo OAR owing to patient or surgeon preference have very low 30-day mortality and morbidity, and superior long-term survival rates compared with those patients who underwent OAR owing to anatomic and/or systemic contraindications to EVAR.