Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg

Bradbury AW, Adam DJ, Bell J, et al.; BASIL trial Participants. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial: An intention-to-treat analysis of amputation-free and overall survival in patients randomized to a bypass surgery-first or a balloon angioplasty-first revascularization strategy. J Vasc Surg. 2010 May;51(5 Suppl):5S-17S.

Free full-text.

Summary of BASIL trial recommendations: The BASIL trial suggests that those SLI patients who are likely to live ≥2 years are probably better served by a BSX-first strategy, preferably with vein. [37] Those SLI patients who are unlikely to live 2 years, and possibly those in whom vein is not available for bypass, are probably better served by a BAP-first strategy because they are unlikely to survive to reap the longer-term benefits of surgery, they may be more likely to suffer surgical morbidity and mortality, and because angioplasty is significantly less expensive than surgery in the short-term.

Continue reading

Phlegmasia alba dolens and phlegmasia cerulea dolens

Chinsakchai K, et al. Trends in management of phlegmasia cerulea dolens. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2011 Jan;45(1):5-14.

Full-text for Emory users.

PCD screenshot

Phlegmasia cerulea dolens (PCD) is a fulminant condition of acute massive venous thrombosis that may result in major amputation or death unless treated in an early phase. Guidelines for treatment are still not clearly documented. As a consequence, physicians might have limited knowledge of this potential life-threatening condition and its clinical course. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to analyze and summarize clinical manifestations and proposed diagnostic approach, factors that affect the outcome of PCD, and the evolution of management and therapeutic options. Underlying malignancy, pulmonary embolism, and PCD severity are the vital factors that predict the outcome of PCD. In the last decades, treatment options have remained largely unchanged. Published evidence shows that advances in minimally invasive techniques have not yet resulted in outcome improvements compared with traditional surgical thrombectomy. Treatment seems to depend on grading the severity of this condition and experience of the surgeon.

Continue reading