Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2025

Synergizing Antegrade Endoscopic with Bridging Vein Harvesting for Improvement of Great Saphenous Vein Graft Quality from the Lower Leg
Published on: November 19, 2019
Vein bypass first vs. best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for chronic limb-threatening
Catherine A Moakes1, Andrew W Bradbury2,3, Zainab Abdali1
1Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Insights
For chronic limb-threatening ischemia, a best endovascular treatment-first strategy improved amputation-free survival and reduced costs compared to vein bypass-first. This approach offers a more effective and economical solution for patients.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Cardiology
- Health Economics
Background:
- Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) presents significant risks, including major amputation and death.
- Atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease is a common cause of CLTI requiring infra-popliteal revascularization.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of vein bypass-first versus best endovascular treatment-first strategies for CLTI.
- To determine which revascularization strategy best prevents major amputation or death in patients with CLTI.
Main Methods:
- A superiority, open-label, pragmatic, multicenter, phase III randomized trial involving 345 patients across UK, Sweden, and Denmark.
- Patients with CLTI underwent infra-popliteal revascularization, randomized to either vein bypass-first or best endovascular treatment-first.
- Primary outcome was amputation-free survival, with secondary outcomes including overall survival, major amputation rates, and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed.
Main Results:
- Best endovascular treatment-first demonstrated superior amputation-free survival (53% vs 63% non-survival; adjusted HR 1.35, P=0.037) and lower mortality (45% vs 53% deaths; adjusted HR 1.37).
- The best endovascular treatment-first strategy was associated with lower hospital costs (£1690 less) and improved quality-adjusted life-years (0.016 and 0.085 gain at 2 and 3 years).
Conclusions:
- A best endovascular treatment-first revascularization strategy is clinically superior and more cost-effective for CLTI patients.
- This approach leads to better amputation-free survival, driven by reduced mortality, and offers economic advantages over vein bypass-first.
Background:
Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia with ischaemic pain and/or tissue loss.
Objective:
To examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a vein bypass-first compared to a best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy in preventing major amputation or death.
Design:
Superiority, open, pragmatic, multicentre, phase III randomised trial.
Setting:
Thirty-nine vascular surgery units in the United Kingdom, and one each in Sweden and Denmark.
Participants:
Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease who required an infra-popliteal revascularisation, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure, to restore limb perfusion.
Interventions:
A vein bypass-first or a best endovascular treatment-first infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation strategy.
Main Outcome Measures:
The primary outcome was amputation-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, major amputation, further revascularisation interventions, major adverse limb event, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events.
Methods:
Participants were randomised to a vein bypass-first or a best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy. The original sample size of 600 participants (247 events) was based on a hazard ratio of 0.66 with amputation-free survival rates of 0.72, 0.62, 0.53, 0.47 and 0.35 in years 1-5 in the best endovascular treatment-first group with 90% power and alpha at p = 0.05. The sample size was revised to an event-based approach as a result of increased follow-up time due to slower than anticipated recruitment rates. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. A cost-effectiveness analysis was employed to estimate differences in total hospital costs and amputation-free survival between the groups. Additionally, a cost-utility analysis was carried out and the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years, 2 and 3 years after randomisation were used.
Results:
Between 22 July 2014 and 30 November 2020, 345 participants were randomised, 172 to vein bypass-first and 173 to best endovascular treatment-first. Non-amputation-free survival occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass-first group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment-first group [adjusted hazard ratio 1.35 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.80); p = 0.037]. Ninety-one (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass-first group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment-first group died [adjusted hazard ratio 1.37 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.87)]. Over follow-up, the economic evaluation discounted results showed that best endovascular treatment-first was associated with £1690 less hospital costs compared to vein bypass-first. The cost utility analysis showed that compared to vein bypass-first, best endovascular treatment-first was associated with £224 and £2233 less discounted hospital costs and 0.016 and 0.085 discounted quality-adjusted life-year gain after 2 and 3 years from randomisation.
Limitations:
Recruiting patients to the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 trial was difficult and the target number of events was not achieved.
Conclusions:
A best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy was associated with better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths. Overall, the economic evaluation results suggest that best endovascular treatment-first dominates vein bypass-first in the cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis as it was less costly and more effective than a vein bypass-first strategy.
Future Work:
The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 investigators have a data sharing agreement with the BEst Surgical Therapy in patients with Chronic Limb threatening Ischaemia investigators. One output of this collaboration will be an individual patient data meta-analysis.
Study Registration:
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27728689.
Funding:
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/45) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 65. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
More Related Videos
13:48Reduction of Radiation Exposure during Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease Combining Fiber Optic RealShape Technology and Intravascular Ultrasound
Published on: April 21, 2023
07:02A Rabbit Venous Interposition Model Mimicking Revascularization Surgery using Vein Grafts to Assess Intimal Hyperplasia under Arterial Blood Pressure
Published on: May 15, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Arterial Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Evaluation