...
首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >Bypass versus angioplasty in severe ischaemia of the leg (BASIL): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
【24h】

Bypass versus angioplasty in severe ischaemia of the leg (BASIL): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

机译:严重腿部缺血时的旁路与血管成形术(BASIL):多中心,随机对照试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND: The treatment of rest pain, ulceration, and gangrene of the leg (severe limb ischaemia) remains controversial. We instigated the BASIL trial to compare the outcome of bypass surgery and balloon angioplasty in such patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 452 patients, who presented to 27 UK hospitals with severe limb ischaemia due to infra-inguinal disease, to receive a surgery-first (n=228) or an angioplasty-first (n=224) strategy. The primary endpoint was amputation (of trial leg) free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The BASIL trial is registered with the National Research Register (NRR) and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN45398889. FINDINGS: The trial ran for 5.5 years, and follow-up finished when patients reached an endpoint (amputation of trial leg above the ankle or death). Seven individuals were lost to follow-up after randomisation (three assigned angioplasty, two surgery); of these, three were lost (one angioplasty, two surgery) during the first year of follow-up. 195 (86%) of 228 patients assigned to bypass surgery and 216 (96%) of 224 to balloon angioplasty underwent an attempt at their allocated intervention at a median (IQR) of 6 (3-16) and 6 (2-20) days after randomisation, respectively. At the end of follow-up, 248 (55%) patients were alive without amputation (of trial leg), 38 (8%) alive with amputation, 36 (8%) dead after amputation, and 130 (29%) dead without amputation. After 6 months, the two strategies did not differ significantly in amputation-free survival (48 vs 60 patients; unadjusted hazard ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.72-1.6; adjusted hazard ratio 0.73, 0.49-1.07). We saw no difference in health-related quality of life between the two strategies, but for the first year the hospital costs associated with a surgery-first strategy were about one third higher than those with an angioplasty-first strategy. INTERPRETATION: In patients presenting with severe limb ischaemia due to infra-inguinal disease and who are suitable for surgery and angioplasty, a bypass-surgery-first and a balloon-angioplasty-first strategy are associated with broadly similar outcomes in terms of amputation-free survival, and in the short-term, surgery is more expensive than angioplasty.
机译:背景:休息疼痛,溃疡和小腿坏疽(严重肢体缺血)的治疗仍存在争议。我们发起了BASIL试验,以比较此类患者的旁路手术和球囊血管成形术的结果。方法:我们随机分配了452例患者,这些患者在英国27所因下腹膜疾病导致严重肢体缺血的医院就诊,采取手术优先(n = 228)或血管成形术优先(n = 224)的策略。主要终点是截肢(试腿)的无生存期。分析是按意向进行的。 BASIL试验已在国家研究注册(NRR)中注册,并作为国际标准随机对照试验注册,编号为ISRCTN45398889。结果:该试验进行了5.5年,当患者达到终点(踝关节上方截肢或死亡)时,随访结束。随机分配后有7人失去随访(3例进行了血管成形术,2例进行了手术)。其中,有3例在随访的第一年丢失(一次血管成形术,两次手术)。 228名接受旁路手术的患者中有195名(86%),而球囊血管成形术的224名患者中有216名(96%)尝试以6(3-16)和6(2-20)的中位数(IQR)进行干预随机分组后的天数。随访结束时,有248名(55%)的患者没有截肢而存活(试验腿),有38名(8%)的患者被截肢了存活,有36名(8%)的患者在截肢后死亡了,有130名(29%)的患者没有截肢。截肢。 6个月后,两种策略的无截肢生存率无显着差异(48例对比60例;未调整的危险比1.07,95%CI 0.72-1.6;调整的危险比0.73,0.49-1.07)。我们发现这两种策略在与健康相关的生活质量方面没有差异,但是第一年与手术优先策略相关的住院费用比血管成形术优先策略高约三分之一。解释:在因下颌窦疾病而导致严重肢体缺血的患者中,适合进行手术和血管成形术的患者,在无截肢方面,先行旁路手术和先行球囊血管成形术的策略与大致相似的结局相关在短期内,手术比血管成形术更昂贵。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号