Cost Effectiveness of Endovascular Revascularisation vs. Exercise Therapy for Intermittent Claudication Due to Iliac Artery Obstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cost effectiveness of endovascular revascularisation (ER) and supervised exercise therapy (SET) as primary treatment for patients with intermittent claudication (IC) due to iliac artery obstruction. METHODS: Cost utility analysis from a restricted societal perspective and time horizon of 12 months. Patients were included in a multicentre randomised controlled trial (SUPER study, NCT01385774, NTR2648) which compared effectiveness of ER and SET. Health status and health related quality of life (HRQOL) were measured using the Euroqol 5 dimensions 3 levels (EQ5D-3L) and VascuQol-25-NL. Incremental costs were determined per allocated treatment and use of healthcare during follow up. Effectiveness of treatment was determined in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The difference between treatment groups was calculated by an incremental cost utility ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Some 240 patients were included, and complete follow up was available for 206 patients (ER 111 , SET 95). The mean costs for patients allocated to ER were €4 031 and €2 179 for SET, a mean difference of €1 852 (95% bias corrected and accelerated [bca] bootstrap confidence interval 1 185 - 2 646). The difference in QALYs during follow up was 0.09 (95% bcaCI 0.04 - 0.13) in favour of ER. The ICER per QALY was €20 805 (95% bcaCI 11 053 - 45 561). The difference in VascuQol sumscore was 0.64 (95% bcaCI 0.39 - 0.91), again in favour of ER. CONCLUSION: ER as a primary treatment, results in slightly better health outcome and higher QALYs and HRQOL during 12 months of follow up. Although these differences are statistically significant, clinical relevance must be discussed due to the small differences and relatively high cost of ER as primary treatment.

Editor's Choice - Randomised Clinical Trial of Supervised Exercise Therapy vs. Endovascular Revascularisation for Intermittent Claudication Caused by Iliac Artery Obstruction: The SUPER study.

OBJECTIVE: International guidelines recommend supervised exercise therapy (SET) as primary treatment for all patients with intermittent claudication (IC), yet primary endovascular revascularisation (ER) might be more effective in patients with iliac artery obstruction. METHODS: This was a multicentre RCT including patients with IC caused by iliac artery stenosis or occlusion (NCT01385774). Patients were allocated randomly to SET or ER stratified for maximum walking distance (MWD) and concomitant SFA disease. Primary endpoints were MWD on a treadmill (3.2 km/h, 10% incline) and disease specific quality of life (VascuQol) after one year. Additional interventions during a mean follow up of 5.5 years were recorded. RESULTS: Between November 2010 and May 2015, 114 patients were allocated to SET, and 126 to ER. The trial was terminated prematurely after 240 patients were included. Compliance with SET was 57/114 (50%) after six months. Ten patients allocated to ER (8%) did not receive this intervention. One year follow up was complete for 90/114 (79%) SET patients and for 104/126 (83%) ER patients. The mean MWD improved from 187 to 561 m in SET patients and from 196 to 574 m in ER patients (p = .69). VascuQol sumscore improved from 4.24 to 5.58 in SET patients, and from 4.28 to 5.88 in ER patients (p = .048). Some 33/114 (29%) SET patients had an ER within one year, and 2/114 (2%) surgical revascularisation (SR). Some 10/126 (8%) ER patients had additional ER within one year and 10/126 (8%) SR. After a mean of 5.5 years, 49% of SET patients and 27% of ER patients underwent an additional intervention for IC. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the many limitations of the SUPER study, both a strategy of primary SET and primary ER improve MWD on a treadmill and disease specific Qol of patients with IC caused by an iliac artery obstruction. It seems reasonable to start with SET in these patients and accept a 30% failure rate, which, of course, must be discussed with the patient. Patients continue to have interventions beyond one year.

Outcomes of infrainguinal revascularizations with endovascular first strategy in critical limb ischemia.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to study the outcome of infrainguinal revascularization in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) in an institution with a preference towards endovascular intervention first in patients with poor condition, unfavourable anatomy for surgery, no venous material for bypass, and old age. METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted between May 2007 and May 2010 in patients presenting with CLI. At baseline, the optimal treatment was selected, i.e., endovascular or surgical treatment. In case of uncertainty about the preferred treatment, a multidisciplinary team (MDT) was consulted. Primary endpoints were quality of life and functional status 6 and 12 months after initial intervention, assessed by the VascuQol and AMC Linear Disability Score questionnaires, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 113 patients were included; 86 had an endovascular intervention and 27 had surgery. During follow-up, 41 % underwent an additional ipsilateral revascularisation procedure. For the total population, and endovascular and surgery subgroups, the VascuQol sum scores improved after 6 and 12 months (p < 0.01 for all outcomes) compared with baseline. The functional status improved (p = 0.043) after 12 months compared with baseline for the total population. Functional status of the surgery subgroup improved significantly after 6 (p = 0.031) and 12 (p = 0.044) months, but not that of the endovascular subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the strategy of performing endovascular treatment first in patients with poor condition, unfavourable anatomy for surgery, no venous material for bypass, and old age has comparable or even slightly better results compared with the BASIL trial and other cohort studies. All vascular groups should discuss whether their treatment strategy should be directed at treating CLI patients preferably endovascular first and consider implementing an MDT to optimize patient outcomes.

Assessment of scar quality after cleft lip closure.

OBJECTIVE: To assess scar quality after cleft lip repair. DESIGN: The linear scars of patients with cleft lip with or without cleft palate were evaluated in a prospective study using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Linear regression was performed to identify which scar characteristics were important according to patients and observer. SETTING: Regular outpatient follow-up visit with the cleft palate teams of two tertiary centers. PATIENTS: All consecutive patients were asked to participate in this study after informed consent, minimally 1 year postsurgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Scar characteristics influencing patient and observer opinion after cleft lip repair. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients with cleft lip with or without cleft palate were included, resulting in evaluation of 99 scars. Two scar characteristics, itching and pain, were seldom a concern for the patients. Linear regression showed that scars assessed longer after surgery had a better outcome. CONCLUSION: Scar itching and pain did not seem to have an effect on patient opinion of the quality of the scar, and the majority of the patients were more satisfied with the outcome of their scar than the observer was.