Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Editor's Choice – Reduction of Major Amputations after Surgery versus Endovascular Intervention: The BEST-CLI Randomised Trial

  • Maarit A. Venermo
  • , Alik Farber
  • , Andres Schanzer
  • , Matthew T. Menard
  • , Kenneth Rosenfield
  • , Hasan Dosluoglu
  • , Philip P. Goodney
  • , Ahmed M. Abou-Zamzam
  • , Raghu Motaganahalli
  • , Gheorghe Doros
  • , Mark A. Creager
  • Helsinki University Hospital
  • Boston University
  • University of Massachusetts Medical School
  • Harvard University
  • Dartmouth College
  • Loma Linda University Health
  • Indiana University Bloomington

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: BEST-CLI, an international randomised trial, compared an initial strategy of bypass surgery with endovascular treatment in chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI). In this substudy, overall amputation rates and risk of major amputation as an initial or subsequent outcome were evaluated. Methods: A total of 1 830 patients were randomised to receive surgical or endovascular treatment in two parallel cohorts: patients with adequate single segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV) (n = 1 434) were assigned to cohort 1; and patients without adequate SSGSV (n = 396) were assigned to cohort 2. Differences in time to first event and number of amputations were evaluated. Results: In cohort 1, there were 410 (45.6%) total amputation events in the surgical group vs. 490 (54.4%) in the endovascular group (p = .001) during a mean follow up of 2.7 years. Approximately one in three patients underwent minor amputation after index revascularisation: 31.5% of the surgical group vs. 34.9% in the endovascular group (p = .17). Subsequent major amputation was required significantly less often in the surgical group compared with the endovascular group (15.0% vs. 25.6%; p = .002). The first amputation was major in 5.6% of patients in the surgical group and 6.0% in the endovascular group (p = .72). Major amputation was required in 10.3% (74/718) of patients in the surgical group and 14.9% (107/716) in the endovascular group (p = .008). In cohort 2, there were 199 amputation events in 132 patients (33.3%) during a mean follow up of 1.6 years: 95 (47.7%) in the surgical group vs. 104 (52.3%) in the endovascular group (p = .49). Major amputation was required in 15.2% (30/197) of patients in the surgical group and 14.1% (28/199) in the endovascular group (p = .74). Conclusion: In patients with CLTI, surgical bypass with SSGSV was more effective than endovascular treatment in preventing major amputations, mainly due to a decrease in major amputations subsequent to minor amputations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)590-597
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Volume68
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2024

Keywords

  • Amputation
  • Bypass surgery
  • Chronic limb threatening ischaemia
  • Endovascular
  • Revascularisation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Editor's Choice – Reduction of Major Amputations after Surgery versus Endovascular Intervention: The BEST-CLI Randomised Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this