Evidence mapPaperPMID 40100950Full record

Trial reportCirculation. Cardiovascular interventions2025

Impact of Bypass Conduit and Early Technical Failure on Revascularization for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

Michael S Conte, Alik Farber, Andrew Barleben, Emiliano Chisci, Gheorghe Doros, Vikram S Kashyap, Ahmed Kayssi, Philippe Kolh, Carla C Moreira, Timothy Nypaver and 7 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02060630 (Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02060630 nacompletednot on this map

Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia

TypeinterventionalSponsorCarelon ResearchRan2014 to 2022Enrolled1,843ConditionsCritical Limb IschemiaArmsOpen surgical revascularization, Endovascular revascularization
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Michael S ConteDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of California, San Francisco (M.S.C.).ORCID 0000-0001-9119-192X
Alik FarberDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, MA (A.F., J.J.S.).
Andrew BarlebenDivision of Vascular Surgery, University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla (A.B.).ORCID 0000-0003-1586-084X
Emiliano ChisciDepartment of Surgery, Vascular Surgery Division, San Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Florence, Italy (E.C.).
Gheorghe DorosBoston University School of Public Health, MA (G.D.).ORCID 0000-0001-5524-4721
Vikram S KashyapFrederik Meijer Heart and Vascular Institute, Corewell Health, Grand Rapids, MI (V.S.K.).ORCID 0000-0003-1780-979X
Ahmed KayssiDivision of Vascular Surgery, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.K.).ORCID 0009-0008-4449-5734
Philippe KolhDepartment of Biomedical and Preclinical Sciences, University of Liège, Belgium (P.K.).ORCID 0000-0001-5464-5515
Carla C MoreiraThe Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI (C.C.M.).ORCID 0000-0002-1067-0206
Timothy NypaverDivision of Vascular Surgery, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI (T.N.).
Kenneth RosenfieldSection of Vascular Medicine and Intervention Massachusetts General Hospital (K.R.), Harvard Medical School, Boston.ORCID 0000-0002-5633-6983
Vincent L RoweDivision of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (V.L.R.).
Andres SchanzerDivision of Vascular Surgery, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA (A.S.).
Niten SinghDivision of Vascular Surgery, University of Washington/Harborview Medical Center, Seattle (N.S.).
Jeffrey J SiracuseDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, MA (A.F., J.J.S.).
Michael B StrongDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital (M.B.S., M.T.M.), Harvard Medical School, Boston.ORCID 0000-0001-9144-6806
Matthew T MenardDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital (M.B.S., M.T.M.), Harvard Medical School, Boston.ORCID 0000-0003-2470-7978

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL107352NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL107407NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL115662
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal strategy for lower extremity revascularization (surgical bypass versus endovascular intervention) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is unclear. We examined the effectiveness of open surgical bypass using single-segment great saphenous vein conduit (SSGSV), alternative conduits (AC), or endovascular interventions (ENDO) among patients with CLTI deemed acceptable for either open surgical bypass or ENDO treatment.

methodsThis was a planned as-treated analysis of the multicenter BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia) randomized controlled trial comparing open surgical bypass and ENDO for CLTI due to infrainguinal peripheral artery disease. Outcomes were tabulated based on the initial revascularization received: SSGSV bypass, AC bypass, and ENDO. Analyses were performed for all treated patients and then excluding those who experienced early technical failure. Multivariable Cox regression models were used. End points included the primary trial outcome (major adverse limb event [MALE] or all-cause death), major amputation, MALE at any time or perioperative (30-day) death, reintervention-amputation-death, and all-cause mortality.

resultsAmong 1780 patients with CLTI, treatments received included SSGSV bypass (n=621), AC bypass (n=236), and ENDO (n=923) procedures. There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events; subjects treated with ENDO experienced greater MALE within 30 days (13.1% versus 2.7%, 3% for SSGSV, AC;

conclusionsAnalysis of as-treated outcomes from the BEST-CLI trial demonstrates the safety and clinical superiority of bypass with SSGSV among patients with CLTI who were deemed suitable for either open surgical bypass or ENDO revascularization. Assessment of great saphenous vein quality should be incorporated into the evaluation of patients with CLTI who are surgical candidates. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02060630 and NCT02060630.

Indexed as

Chronic Limb-Threatening IschemiaEndovascular ProceduresIschemiaLower ExtremityPeripheral Arterial DiseaseSaphenous VeinVascular GraftingAgedAged, 80 and overAmputation, SurgicalChronic DiseaseCritical IllnessFemaleHumansLimb SalvageMaleamputationchronic limb-threatening ischemiaendovascular procedureslimb salvagesaphenous veinvascular grafting

Identifiers

PMID40100950
PMCPMC11921934

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.