A Comparison of Contemporary Clinical Outcomes Following Femoro-Popliteal Plain Balloon Angioplasty and Bypass Surgery for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the BASIL-1 trial concluding that bypass surgery (BS) was superior to plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in terms of longer-term amputation free (AFS) and overall survival (OS), CLTI patients are increasingly offered an endovascular-first revascularization strategy. This study investigates whether the results of BASIL-1 are still relevant to current practice by comparing femoro-popliteal (FP) BS with PBA in a series of CLTI patients treated in our unit 10 years after BASIL-1 (1999-2004).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively gathered hospital data pertaining to 279 patients undergoing primary FP BS or PBA for CLTI in the period 2009 to 2014. We report baseline characteristics, 30-day morbidity and mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and long-term AFS, limb salvage (LS), OS, major adverse limb events (MALE), and freedom from re-intervention (FFR).

RESULTS

234 (84%) and 45 (16%) patients underwent PBA and BS respectively. PBA patients were significantly older (77 vs 71 years, = 0.001) and more likely to be female (45% vs 28%, = 0.026). Bollinger and GLASS anatomic scores were significantly more severe in the BS group. Technical success was better for BS (100% vs 87%, = 0.007). Index hospital stay was shorter for PBA (9.1 vs 15.6 days, = 0.035) but there was no difference in hospital days or admissions over the next 12 months. AFS (HR 1.00), LS (HR 1.44), OS (HR 0.81), MALE (HR 1.25) and FFR (HR = 1.00) were not significantly different between PBA and BS.

CONCLUSION

Important clinical outcomes following FP BS and PBA for CLTI have not changed significantly in our unit in the 10 years following the BASIL-1 trial. BASIL-1 therefore remains relevant to our current practice and should inform our approach to the management of CLTI going forward.