Trial reportCirculation2024
Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Treated With Revascularization.
Trial report in Circulation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frailty and the efficacy and safety of surgical versus endovascular revascularization: post-hoc analysis of the BEST-CLI trial.The British journal of surgery · 2026Trial
- Characteristics of multidisciplinary limb preservation teams and their impact on outcomes in the BEST-CLI trial.Journal of vascular surgery · 2026Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Endovascular vs Open Surgery for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Wound healing, wound-free period and amputation-free survival in patients with Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) stage 3 and 4 disease.Journal of vascular surgery · 2026Article
- Balancing Days at Home and Major Adverse Limb Events After Surgical Versus Endovascular Lower-Extremity Revascularization in Chronic Kidney Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Pain management in chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: a multi-centre cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Outcomes of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms and critical limb ischemia: insights from the National readmissions database.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Article
- Blood Pressure and Risk of Clinical Events in Peripheral Artery Disease.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- International BEST-CLI Collaborative: next steps to create a coordinated global initiative to improve awareness and access while reducing mortality and amputation for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Where to Next after BASIL-2 and BEST-CLI?Current vascular pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the BEST-CLI trial (Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia), a prespecified secondary objective was to assess the effects of revascularization strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
methodsPatients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia were randomized to surgical bypass (Bypass) or endovascular intervention (Endo) in 2 parallel trials. Cohort 1 included patients with single-segment great saphenous vein; cohort 2 included those lacking suitable single-segment great saphenous vein. HRQoL was assessed over the trial duration using Vascular Quality-of-Life (VascuQoL), European Quality-of-Life-5D (EQ-5D), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Summary (SF-12 MCS), Utility Index Score (SF-6D R2), and numeric rating scales of pain. HRQoL was summarized by cohort and compared within and between groups using mixed-model linear regression.
resultsA total of 1193 and 335 patients in cohorts 1 and 2 with a mean follow-up of 2.9 and 2.0 years, respectively, were analyzed. In cohort 1, HRQoL significantly improved from baseline to follow-up for both groups across all measures. For example, mean (SD) VascuQoL scores were 3.0 (1.3) and 3.0 (1.2) for Bypass and Endo at baseline and 4.7 (1.4) and 4.8 (1.5) over follow-up. There were significant group differences favoring Endo when assessed with VascuQoL (difference, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.02];
conclusionsAmong patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia deemed eligible for either Bypass or Endo, revascularization resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL. In patients with an available single-segment great saphenous vein for bypass, but not among those without one, Endo was statistically superior on some HRQoL measures; however, these differences were below the threshold of clinically meaningful difference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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 OpenQuestion graph.