Bradbury Andrew W, Hall Jack, Moakes Catherine A, Popplewell Matthew, Meecham Lewis, Bate Gareth R, Kelly Lisa, Diamantopoulos Athanasios, Ganeshan Arul, Houlind Kim, Malmstedt Jonas, Patel Jai V, Saratzis Athanasios, Zayed Hany
College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2025 Jan;69(1):102-107. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.07.029. Epub 2024 Jul 26.
The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 trial enrolled participants with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infrapopliteal, with or without a femoropopliteal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. Participants randomised to a vein bypass (VB) first revascularisation strategy were over one third more likely than those randomised to a best endovascular treatment (BET) first revascularisation strategy to die from any cause during a median follow up of 40.0 (interquartile range 20.9, 60.6) months. The aim of the present study was to describe the timing and causes of death in BASIL-2 as a first step towards trying to better understand why randomisation to a VB first revascularisation strategy was associated with this excess mortality.
A 10 person international panel comprising vascular and endovascular surgeons as well as vascular interventional radiologists, who had all been principal investigators in BASIL-2, took part in a modified Delphi consensus exercise to adjudicate the primary cause of death and, in particular, whether the cause was primarily cardiac or non-cardiac.
In 151 of 168 deaths (89.9%), the Delphi panel achieved a consensus regarding the cause of death being probably cardiac or non-cardiac. In the BET group, 16 of 77 deaths (21%) were classified as probably cardiac compared with 32 of 91 (35%) in the VB group (unadjusted subdistribution hazard ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 - 3.87; unadjusted cause specific hazard ratio 2.15, 95% CI 1.19 - 3.90). At the point of randomisation, 64 of 344 (18.6%), 40 of 342 (11.7%), and 37 of 344 (10.8%) participants had a previous myocardial infarction (MI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), respectively. There was no evidence of varying treatment effects for cause of death in subgroup analyses of previous PCI, CABG, or MI.
The excess mortality observed in the VB first revascularisation strategy group in BASIL-2 was largely due to deaths that were adjudicated by the Delphi panel as probably primarily cardiac. These excess cardiac deaths were observed throughout follow up and there was no evidence of non-proportional hazards. Further work is ongoing to try to better understand the reasons for these findings.
下肢严重缺血旁路移植术与血管成形术(BASIL)-2试验纳入了患有慢性肢体威胁性缺血且需要进行腘下血管重建(伴或不伴股腘血管重建)以恢复肢体灌注的参与者。在40.0(四分位间距20.9,60.6)个月的中位随访期内,随机分配至静脉旁路移植(VB)首次血管重建策略组的参与者因任何原因死亡的可能性比随机分配至最佳血管内治疗(BET)首次血管重建策略组的参与者高出三分之一以上。本研究的目的是描述BASIL-2试验中死亡的时间和原因,作为试图更好地理解为何随机分配至VB首次血管重建策略与这种额外死亡率相关的第一步。
一个由血管和血管内外科医生以及血管介入放射科医生组成的10人国际小组(他们均为BASIL-2试验的主要研究者)参与了一项改良的德尔菲共识评估,以判定主要死因,特别是死因是否主要为心脏原因或非心脏原因。
在168例死亡中的151例(89.9%)中,德尔菲小组就死因可能为心脏原因或非心脏原因达成了共识。在BET组中,77例死亡中有16例(21%)被归类为可能主要是心脏原因,而在VB组中91例死亡中有32例(35%)(未调整的亚分布风险比2.16,95%置信区间[CI]1.20 - 3.87;未调整的特定原因风险比2.15,95%CI 1.19 - 3.90)。在随机分组时,344例参与者中有64例(18.6%)、342例中有40例(11.7%)、344例中有37例(10.8%)分别有既往心肌梗死(MI)、经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)史。在既往PCI、CABG或MI的亚组分析中,没有证据表明死因的治疗效果存在差异。
在BASIL-2试验中,VB首次血管重建策略组观察到的额外死亡率主要归因于德尔菲小组判定可能主要为心脏原因的死亡。这些额外的心脏死亡在整个随访过程中均有观察到,且没有证据表明存在非比例风险。正在进行进一步的研究,以试图更好地理解这些发现的原因。