Popplewell Matthew A, Davies Huw O B, Meecham Lewis, Bate Gareth, Bradbury Andrew W
Department of Vascular Surgery, 1724University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2020 Sep 10;55(1):1538574420953949. doi: 10.1177/1538574420953949.
A published subgroup analysis of the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial suggests that, in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) due to infra-popliteal (IP) disease, clinical outcomes are better following vein bypass surgery (BS) than after plain balloon angioplasty (PBA). The aim of the present study is to determine if clinical outcomes following IP revascularization in our unit are concordant with those found in BASIL-1.
We analyzed prospectively gathered data pertaining to 137 consecutive CLTI patients undergoing IP PBA or BS between 2009 and 2013. We compared 30-day morbidity and mortality, days in hospital (index admission and out to 12-months), amputation free survival (AFS), overall survival (OS), limb salvage (LS), and freedom from arterial re-intervention (FFR). Patient outcomes were censored on 1 February 2017, providing a minimum 3 years follow-up.
Patients undergoing BS (73/137, 47%) tended to be younger, have less comorbidity, and were more likely to be on best medical therapy (BMT). BS patients spent more days in hospital during the index admission (median 9 vs 5, p = .003), but not out to 12 months (median 15 vs 13, NS). BS patients suffered more 30-day morbidity (36% vs 10%, p < .001), mainly due to infective complications, but not mortality (3.1% vs 6.8%, NS). AFS (p = .001) and OS (p < .001), but not LS or FFR, were better after BS.
CLTI patients selected for revascularization by means of IP BS had better long-term outcomes in terms of AFS and OS, but not FFR or LS. Although we await the results of the BASIL-2 trial, current data support the BASIL-1 sub-group analysis which suggests that patients requiring revascularization for IP disease should have BS where possible and that PBA should usually be reserved for patients who are not suitable for BS.
一项已发表的对严重下肢缺血旁路移植术与血管成形术(BASIL)-1试验的亚组分析表明,对于因腘下(IP)疾病导致慢性肢体威胁性缺血(CLTI)的患者,静脉旁路手术(BS)后的临床结局优于单纯球囊血管成形术(PBA)。本研究的目的是确定我们科室IP血管重建术后的临床结局是否与BASIL-1试验中的结果一致。
我们前瞻性分析了2009年至2013年间137例连续接受IP PBA或BS的CLTI患者的相关数据。我们比较了30天发病率和死亡率、住院天数(首次住院及出院后至12个月)、无截肢生存率(AFS)、总生存率(OS)、肢体挽救率(LS)以及无动脉再次干预率(FFR)。患者结局数据截止至2017年2月1日,提供了至少3年的随访。
接受BS的患者(73/137,47%)往往更年轻,合并症更少,且更有可能接受最佳药物治疗(BMT)。BS患者在首次住院期间住院天数更多(中位数9天对5天,p = 0.003),但出院后至12个月时并无差异(中位数15天对13天,无统计学意义)。BS患者30天发病率更高(36%对10%,p < 0.001),主要是由于感染性并发症,但死亡率无差异(3.1%对6.8%,无统计学意义)。BS术后AFS(p = 0.001)和OS(p < 0.001)更好,但LS或FFR并非如此。
因IP疾病而选择通过BS进行血管重建的CLTI患者在AFS和OS方面有更好的长期结局,但FFR和LS并非如此。尽管我们在等待BASIL-2试验的结果,但目前的数据支持BASIL-1亚组分析,该分析表明因IP疾病需要血管重建的患者应尽可能接受BS,而PBA通常应保留给不适合BS的患者。