Dataset Information

Design and Rationale of the Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) Trial.

ABSTRACT: Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is increasing in prevalence, and remains a significant source of mortality and limb loss. The decision to recommend surgical or endovascular revascularization for patients who are candidates for both varies significantly among providers and is driven more by individual preference than scientific evidence.The Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) Trial is a prospective, randomized, multidisciplinary, controlled, superiority trial designed to compare treatment efficacy, functional outcomes, quality of life, and cost in patients undergoing best endovascular or best open surgical revascularization. Approximately 140 clinical sites in the United States and Canada will enroll 2100 patients with CLI who are candidates for both treatment options. A pragmatic trial design requires consensus on patient eligibility by at least 2 investigators, but leaves the choice of specific procedural strategy within the assigned revascularization approach to the individual treating investigator. Patients with suitable single-segment of saphenous vein available for potential bypass will be randomized within Cohort 1 (n=1620), while patients without will be randomized within Cohort 2 (n=480). The primary efficacy end point of the trial is Major Adverse Limb Event-Free Survival. Key secondary end points include Re-intervention and Amputation-Free-Survival and Amputation Free-Survival.The BEST-CLI trial is the first randomized controlled trial comparing endovascular therapy to open surgical bypass in patients with CLI to be carried out in North America. This landmark comparative effectiveness trial aims to provide Level I data to clarify the appropriate role for both treatment strategies and help define an evidence-based standard of care for this challenging patient population.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT02060630.

SUBMITTER: Menard MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5015366 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Design and Rationale of the Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) Trial.

Menard Matthew T MT Farber Alik A Assmann Susan F SF Choudhry Niteesh K NK Conte Michael S MS Creager Mark A MA Dake Michael D MD Jaff Michael R MR Kaufman John A JA Powell Richard J RJ Reid Diane M DM Siami Flora Sandra FS Sopko George G White Christopher J CJ Rosenfield Kenneth K

Journal of the American Heart Association 20160708 7

<h4>Background</h4>Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is increasing in prevalence, and remains a significant source of mortality and limb loss. The decision to recommend surgical or endovascular revascularization for patients who are candidates for both varies significantly among providers and is driven more by individual preference than scientific evidence.<h4>Methods and results</h4>The Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) Trial is a pros ...[more]

PMID: 27402237

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Bypass Versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischemia of the Leg randomized controlled trial showed comparable outcomes between endovascular revascularization (ER) and surgical revascularization (SR) for patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). However, several observational studies showed mixed results. Most of these studies were conducted before advanced endovascular technologies were available.ObjectiveTo compare ER and SR treatment strategies for 6-month outcomes among patients with CLI.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, population-based cohort study used the Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify 66 277 patients with CLI who underwent ER or SR from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. Data analyses were conducted from January 1, 2022, to February 8, 2022. A propensity score with 1:1 matching was applied. Patients with CLI who underwent ER or SR were identified, and those with missing information on the length of stay and/or younger than 18 years were excluded.ExposuresEndovascular or surgical revascularization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a major amputation at 6 months. Significant secondary outcomes were in-hospital and 6-month mortality and an in-hospital safety composite of acute kidney injury, major bleeding, and vascular complication. Subgroup analysis was conducted for major amputation in high-volume centers.ResultsA total of 66 277 patients were identified between 2016 and 2018 who underwent ER or SR for CLI. The Nationwide Readmissions Database does not provide racial and ethnic categories. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 69.3 (12) years, and 62.5% of patients were male. A total of 54 546 patients (82.3%) underwent ER and 11 731 (17.7%) underwent SR. After propensity score matching, 11 106 matched pairs were found. Endovascular revascularization was associated with an 18% higher risk of major amputation compared with SR (997 of 10 090 [9.9%] vs 869 of 10 318 [8.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.29; P = .001). However, no difference was observed in major amputation risk when both procedures were performed in high-volume centers. Endovascular revascularization and SR had similar mortality rates (517 of 11 106 [4.7%] vs 490 of 11 106 [4.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P = .39). However, the ER group had a 17% lower risk of in-hospital safety outcomes compared with the SR group (2584 of 11 106 [23.3%] vs 2979 of 11 106 [26.8%]; odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.88; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study suggest that ER was safer, without any difference in mortality, but ER was associated with an increased risk of major amputation compared with SR. However, the risk of major amputation was similar when both procedures were performed at high-volume centers.

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to analyze periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of peripheral endovascular intervention (PVI) for critical limb ischemia (CLI).MethodsWe reviewed 1244 patients undergoing 1414 PVIs for CLI (rest pain, 29%; tissue loss, 71%) within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) from January 2010 to December 2011. Overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), and freedom from major amputation at 1 year were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe number of arteries treated during each procedure were 1 (49%), 2 (35%), 3 (12%), and ≥4 (5%). Target arterial segments and TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus classifications were aortoiliac, 27% (A, 48%; B, 28%; C, 12%; and D, 12%); femoral-popliteal, 48% (A, 29%; B, 34%; C, 20%; and D, 17%); and infrapopliteal, 25% (A, 17%; B, 14%; C, 25%; D, 44%). Technical success was 92%. Complications included access site hematoma (5.0%), occlusion (0.3%), and distal embolization (2.4%). Mortality and major amputation rates were 2.8% and 2.2% at 30 days, respectively. Overall percutaneous or open reintervention rate was 8.0% during the first year. At 1-year, OS, AFS, and freedom from major amputation were 87%, 87%, and 94% for patients with rest pain and 80%, 71%, and 81% for patients with tissue loss. Independent predictors of reduced 1-year OS (C index = .74) included dialysis (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.8-5.1; P < .01), emergency procedure (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.0-6.2; P = .05), age >80 years (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.7-2.8; P < .01), not living at home preoperatively (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .01), creatinine >1.8 mg/dL (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.8; P < .01), congestive heart failure (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2; P < .01), and chronic β-blocker use (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; P = .03), whereas independent preoperative ambulation (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9; P = .014) was protective. Independent predictors of major amputation (C index = .69) at 1 year included dialysis (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.5; P < .01), tissue loss (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P = .02), prior major contralateral amputation (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5; P = .02), non-Caucasian race (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9; P = .045), and male gender (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6; P = .03), whereas smoking (HR, .60; 95% CI, 0.4-1.0; P = .042) was protective.ConclusionsSurvival and major amputation after PVI for CLI are associated with different patient characteristics. Dialysis dependence is a common predictor that portends especially poor outcomes. These data may facilitate efforts to improve patient selection and, after further validation, enable risk-adjusted outcome reporting for CLI patients undergoing PVI.

Project description:BackroundEmploying growth factor-induced partial reprogramming in vitro, peripheral human blood monocytes can acquire a state of plasticity along with expression of various markers of pluripotency. These so-called programmable cells of monocytic origin (PCMO) hold great promise in regenerative therapies. The aim of this translational study was to explore and exploit the functional properties of PCMO for allogeneic cell transplantation therapy in critical limb ischemia (CLI).MethodsUsing our previously described differentiation protocol, murine and human monocytes were differentiated into PCMO. We examined paracrine secretion of pro-angiogenic and tissue recovery-associated proteins under hypoxia and induction of angiogenesis by PCMO in vitro. Allogeneic cell transplantation of PCMO was performed in a hind limb ischemia mouse model in comparison to cell transplantation of native monocytes and a placebo group. Moreover, we analyzed retrospectively four healing attempts with PCMO in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD; Rutherford classification, stage 5 and 6). Statistical analysis was performed by using one-way ANOVA, Tukey's test or the Student's t test, p < 0.05.ResultsCell culture experiments revealed good resilience of PCMO under hypoxia, enhanced paracrine release of pro-angiogenic and tissue recovery-associated proteins and induction of angiogenesis in vitro by PCMO. Animal experiments demonstrated significantly enhanced SO2 saturation, blood flow, neoangiogenesis and tissue recovery after treatment with PCMO compared to treatment with native monocytes and placebo. Finally, first therapeutic application of PCMO in humans demonstrated increased vascular collaterals and improved wound healing in patients with chronic CLI without exaggerated immune response, malignant processes or extended infection after 12 months. In all patients minor and/or major amputations of the lower extremity could be avoided.ConclusionsIn summary, PCMO improve angiogenesis and tissue recovery in chronic ischemic muscle and first clinical results promise to provide an effective and safe treatment of CLI.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Lower extremity bypass (LEB) has traditionally been the "gold standard" in the treatment of critical limb ischemia (CLI). Infrainguinal endovascular intervention (IEI) has become more commonly performed than LEB, but comparative outcomes are limited. We sought to compare rates of major adverse limb events (MALEs) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) after LEB and IEI in a propensity score-matched, national cohort of patients with CLI. METHODS:The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) vascular targeted files (2011-2014) for LEB and IEI were merged. CLI patients were identified by ischemic rest pain or tissue loss. Patients were matched on a 1:1 basis for propensity to undergo LEB or IEI. Primary outcomes were 30-day MALEs and MACEs. Within the propensity-matched cohort, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of MALEs and MACEs. RESULTS:A total of 13,294 LEBs and IEIs were identified, with 8066 cases performed for CLI. Propensity matching identified 3848 cases (1924 per group). There were no differences in preoperative variables between the propensity-matched LEB and IEI groups (all P > .05). At 30 days, rates of MALEs were significantly lower in the LEB group (9.2% LEB vs IEI 12.2%; P = .003). On multivariate logistic regression, bypass with single-segment saphenous vein vs IEI (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.92; P = .01), bypass with alternative conduit (prosthetic, spliced vein, or composite) vs IEI (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98; P = .04), antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.58-1.00; P = .049), and statin therapy (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99; P = .04) were protective against MALEs, whereas infrageniculate intervention (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.09-1.72; P = .01) and a history of prior bypass of the same arterial segment (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.41-2.41; P <. 0001) were predictive. Rates of 30-day MACEs were not significantly different (4.9% LEB vs 3.7% IEI; P = .07) between the groups. Independent predictors of MACEs included age (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; P = .01), steroid use (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.08-2.99; P = .03), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96; P = .02), beta blocker use (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.09-1.43; P = .01), dialysis (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.55-3.45; P < .0001), totally dependent functional status (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.25-7.58; P = .02), and suboptimal conduit for LEB compared with IEI (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.36; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:Within this large, propensity-matched, national cohort, LEB predicted lower risk-adjusted 30-day MALE rate compared with IEI. Furthermore, there was no difference in 30-day MACE rate between the groups despite higher inherent risk with open surgical procedures. Therefore, this study supports the effectiveness and primacy of LEB for revascularization in CLI.

Project description:BackgroundCritical limb ischemia remains a difficult disease to treat, with limited level one data. The BEST-CLI trial (Best Endovascular vs Best Open Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia) is attempting to answer whether initial treatment with open surgical bypass or endovascular therapy improves outcomes, although it remains in enrollment. This study aims to compare amputation-free survival and reintervention rates in patients treated with initial open surgical bypass or endovascular intervention for ischemic ulcers of the lower extremities.Methods and resultsUsing California nonfederal hospital data linked to statewide death data, all patients with lower extremity ulcers and a diagnosis of peripheral artery disease who underwent a revascularization procedure from 2005 to 2013 were identified. Propensity scores were formulated from baseline patient characteristics. Inverse probability weighting was used with Kaplan-Meier analysis to determine amputation-free survival and time to reintervention for open versus endovascular treatment. Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to adjust for patient ability to manage their disease and hospital revascularization volume. A total of 16 800 patients were identified. Open surgical bypass was the initial treatment in 5970 (36%) while 10 830 (64%) underwent endovascular interventions. Patients in the endovascular group were slightly younger compared with the open group (70 versus 71 years, ±12 years; P<0.001). Endovascular-first patients were more likely to have comorbid renal failure (36% versus 24%), coronary artery disease (34% versus 32%), congestive heart failure (19% versus 15%), and diabetes mellitus (65% versus 58%; all P values <0.05). After inverse propensity weighting as well as adjustment for patient ability to manage their disease and hospital revascularization experience, open surgery first was associated with a worse amputation-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) with no difference in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11). Endovascular first was associated with higher rates of reintervention (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.23).ConclusionsPatients with critical limb ischemia have multiple comorbidities, and initial surgical bypass is associated with poorer amputation-free survival compared with an endovascular-first approach, perhaps due to increased severity of wounds at the time of presentation.

Dataset Information

Design and Rationale of the Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) Trial.

Publications

Design and Rationale of the Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets