Paclitaxel and Mortality Following Peripheral Angioplasty: An Adjusted and Case Matched Multicentre Analysis

Objective: Paclitaxel based drug coated balloons (DCBs) and drug eluting stents (DESs) may be associated with increased mortality in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD), based on a recent meta-analysis. This study, however, had a number of limitations, which have been discussed at great length among the vascular community. The aim of this research was to assess the association between paclitaxel based endovascular treatment (PTX) in the femoropopliteal (F–P) segment and mortality, adjusting for relevant risk factors and including patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained multicentre (three sites) database of patients with claudication or CLTI. Patients having F–P angioplasty between 1 January 2014 and 30 May 2019 with or without PTX were included. Survival was compared in Cox regression analyses adjusted for parameters of the Charlson comorbidity index. A separate nested case matched (based on each individual's Charlson index) analysis was performed to compare mortality rates between those who received PTX and those who did not. Results: A total of 2 071 patients were analysed: 966 patients (46.6%) were treated with PTX (952 [46%] had CLTI and 1 119 [54%] severe claudication [Rutherford stage 3]). Over a 24 month median follow up, 456 (22.1%) patients died. Using multivariable Cox regression, PTX was not associated with mortality (HR 0.94, p = .46), even when assessed separately for those with intermittent claudication (HR 1.30, p = .15) or CLTI (HR 0.81, p = .060). In the case matched analysis (885 matched pairs of patients), PTX was not associated with mortality (HR 0.89, p = .17). Paclitaxel dose and use of a DCB or DES were not associated with mortality in any subanalysis. Conclusion: When relevant risk factors were taken into account, there were no associations between PTX and mid term mortality in patients with PAOD

Selecting portable ankle/toe brachial pressure index systems for a peripheral arterial disease population screening programme: A systematic review, clinical evaluation exercise, and consensus process.

Objective To provide an overview of systems available for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) screening, together with respective accuracies and a clinical evaluation to identify a system suitable for use in a community screening programme. Methods A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of six ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) and toe brachial pressure index (TBPI) devices deemed to be portable, which were Conformité Européenne (CE) marked, and were automated or semi-automated was carried out compared with gold standard handheld Doppler and duplex ultrasound. The devices were MESI-ABPI-MD, Huntleigh Dopplex Ability, Huntleigh ABPI and TBPI systems, Systoe TBPI system, and BlueDop. Seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)) were searched, and 11 studies were identified as eligible for review. This was followed by hands on clinical evaluation by abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening staff (n = 39). During this, devices were demonstrated to staff which they then tested on volunteers and gave feedback using pre-designed questionnaires on their suitability for use in a screening programme. Finally, accuracy data and staff preferences were combined during a consensus conference that was held between study and screening staff to determine the most appropriate device to use in a community screening programme. Results Generally, the evaluated systems have a moderate level of sensitivity and a high level of specificity: Dopplex ability sensitivity 20% – 70%, specificity 86% – 96%; MESI sensitivity 57% – 74%, specificity 85% – 99%; BlueDop sensitivity 95%, specificity 89%; and Systoe sensitivity 71%, specificity 77%. Clinical evaluation by screening staff identified a preference for the MESI system. The consensus conference concluded that the MESI device was a good candidate for use in a community PAD screening programme. Conclusion The MESI system is a good candidate to consider for community PAD screening.</p

A vein bypass first versus a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for 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 (BASIL-2): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial

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.</p

Editor's Choice – European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines on Antithrombotic Therapy for Vascular Diseases

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed a series of clinical practice guidelines for clinicians caring for patients with vascular diseases. This is the first guideline specifically examining antithrombotic therapy. The aim of the guideline is to assist clinicians and patients in selecting an optimal antithrombotic strategy.</p