RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia is the severest manifestation of peripheral arterial disease and presents with ischaemic pain at rest or tissue loss (ulceration, gangrene, or both), or both. We compared the effectiveness of a vein bypass first with a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy in terms of preventing major amputation and death in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. METHODS: Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 was an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial done at 41 vascular surgery units in the UK (n=39), Sweden (n=1), and Denmark (n=1). Eligible patients were those who presented to hospital-based vascular surgery units with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic disease and who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either vein bypass (vein bypass group) or best endovascular treatment (best endovascular treatment group) as their first revascularisation procedure through a secure online randomisation system. Participants were excluded if they had ischaemic pain or tissue loss considered not to be primarily due to atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease. Most vein bypasses used the great saphenous vein and originated from the common or superficial femoral arteries. Most endovascular interventions comprised plain balloon angioplasty with selective use of plain or drug eluting stents. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Data were collected locally at participating centres. In England, Wales, and Sweden, centralised databases were used to collect information on amputations and deaths. Data were analysed centrally at the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit. The primary outcome was amputation-free survival defined as time to first major (above the ankle) amputation or death from any cause measured in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by monitoring serious adverse events up to 30-days after first revascularisation. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27728689. FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2014, and Nov 30, 2020, 345 participants (65 [19%] women and 280 [81%] men; median age 72·5 years [62·7-79·3]) with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned: 172 (50%) to the vein bypass group and 173 (50%) to the best endovascular treatment group. Major amputation or death occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·35 [95% CI 1·02-1·80]; p=0·037). 91 (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group died (adjusted HR 1·37 [95% CI 1·00-1·87]). In both groups the most common causes of morbidity and death, including that occurring within 30 days of their first revascularisation, were cardiovascular (61 deaths in the vein bypass group and 49 in the best endovascular treatment group) and respiratory events (25 deaths in the vein bypass group and 23 in the best endovascular treatment group; number of cardiovascular and respiratory deaths were not mutually exclusive). INTERPRETATION: In the BASIL-2 trial, a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy was associated with a better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths in the best endovascular treatment group. These data suggest that more patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion should be considered for a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Programme.
Assuntos
Angioplastia Coronária com Balão , Ocimum basilicum , Doença Arterial Periférica , Masculino , Humanos , Feminino , Idoso , Isquemia Crônica Crítica de Membro , Isquemia/cirurgia , Doença Arterial Periférica/complicações , Doença Arterial Periférica/cirurgia , Fatores de Risco , Perfusão , Dor , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Spin in the reporting of randomized controlled trials, where authors report research in a way that potentially misrepresents results and mislead readers, has been demonstrated in the broader medical literature. We investigated spin in wound care trials with (a) no statistically significant result for the primary outcome and (b) no clearly specified primary outcome. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible studies were: Parallel-group RCTs of interventions for foot, leg or pressure ulcers published in 2004 to 2009 (inclusive) with either a clearly identified primary outcome for which there was a statistically non-significant result (Cohort A) or studies that had no clear primary outcome (Cohort B).We extracted general study details. For both Cohorts A and B we then assessed for the presence of spin. For Cohort A we used a pre-defined process to assess reports for spin. For Cohort B we aimed to assess spin by recording the number of positive treatment effect claims made. We also compared the number of statistically significant and non-significant results reported in the main text and the abstract looking specifically for spin in the form of selective outcome reporting. RESULTS: Of the 71 eligible studies, 28 were eligible for Cohort A; of these, 71% (20/28) contained spin. Cohort B contained 43 studies; of these, 86% (37/43) had abstracts that claimed a favorable treatment claim. Whilst 74% (32/43) of main text results in Cohort B included at least one statistically non-significant result, this was not reflected in the abstract where only 28% contained (12/43) at least one statistically non-significant result. CONCLUSIONS: Spin is a frequent phenomenon in reports of RCTs of wound treatments. Studies without statistically significant results for the primary outcome used spin in 71% of cases. Furthermore, 33% (43/132) of reports of wound RCTs did not specify a primary outcome and there was evidence of spin and selective outcome reporting in the abstracts of these. Readers should be wary of only reading the abstracts of reports of RCTs of wound treatments since they are frequently misleading regarding treatment effects.
Assuntos
Viés , Úlcera da Perna/terapia , Úlcera por Pressão/terapia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Projetos de Pesquisa , Cicatrização , Conflito de Interesses , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Determinação de Ponto Final , Setor de Assistência à Saúde/economia , Humanos , Úlcera da Perna/diagnóstico , Úlcera por Pressão/diagnóstico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/economia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Projetos de Pesquisa/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To establish reliable estimates of the proportion of books available in formats accessible to visually impaired people; to recommend a practical method of updating the estimates. METHODS: The project had two stages. Stage one estimated the overall availability of all categories of books. The British National Bibliography (BNB) for 1999-2003 was chosen as the sampling frame. A sample of 2069 titles over the 5 years was selected using a systematic sample design. These titles were then checked for availability against the catalogues of four major producer/suppliers of materials in accessible formats. The second stage involved checking the availability of books in six genres; about 400 titles for each genre were examined. RESULTS: Of the titles selected for the overall estimate, 92 (4.4%) were found to be available in one or more accessible formats. Availability of titles in accessible formats varied greatly between categories. Adult fiction had the highest number of available publications (26.3%), least represented were cookery (1.9%) and gardening (1.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provided baseline figures and a methodology for the Right to Read Alliance to monitor their progress in campaigning for more books to be accessible to visually impaired people.