Clinical Effectiveness and Resource Utilization of Surgery versus Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

Lamaina M, Childers CP, Liu C, Mak SS, Booth MS, Conte MS, Maggard-Gibbons M, Shekelle PG. Clinical Effectiveness and Resource Utilization of Surgery versus Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia. Annals of vascular surgery. 2020 Oct 1; 68:510-521.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of surgical versus endovascular therapy for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) continues to be debated, and the resources required for each therapy are unclear. METHODS: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing surgery with endovascular therapy for CLTI, which reported clinical effectiveness and resource utilization. Short-term and long-term clinical outcomes were examined. RESULTS: The search yielded 4,231 titles, of which 17 publications met our inclusion criteria. Five publications were all from 1 RCT, and 12 publications were observational studies. In the RCT, the surgical approach had greater resource use in the first year (total hospital days across all admissions for surgery versus angioplasty: 46.14 ± 53.87 vs. 36.35 ± 51.39; P  <  0.001; also true for days in high-dependency and intensive therapy units), but differences were not statistically significant in subsequent years. All-cause mortality presented a nonsignificant difference favoring angioplasty in the first 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.75-2.15), but after 2 years, it favored surgical treatment (aHR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.71). The observational studies reported short-term effectiveness and resource utilization favoring endovascular therapy, but most differences were not statistically significant. Long-term outcomes were more mixed; in particular, mortality outcomes generally favored surgery, although concluding that cause and effect is not possible as endovascularly treated patients tended to be older and may have had a shorter life expectancy regardless of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness and resource utilization of surgery compared with endovascular therapy for CLTI is not known with certainty and will not be known until ongoing trials report results. It is likely that findings will vary by the time horizon, where initial outcomes and utilization tend to favor endovascular interventions, but long-term outcomes favor surgical revascularization.