Absence of Long-Term Benefit of Revascularization in Patients With Intermittent Claudication: Five-Year Results From the IRONIC Randomized Controlled Trial

Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jan;13(1):e008450. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008450. Epub 2020 Jan 15.

Abstract

Background: The long-term benefit of revascularization for intermittent claudication is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with a noninvasive approach.

Methods: The IRONIC trial (Invasive Revascularization or Not in Intermittent Claudication) randomized patients with mild-to-severe intermittent claudication to either revascularization + best medical therapy + structured exercise therapy (the revascularization group) or best medical therapy + structured exercise therapy (the nonrevascularization group). The health-related quality of life short form 36 questionnaire was primary outcome and disease-specific health-related quality of life (vascular quality of life questionnaire) and treadmill walking distances were secondary end points. Health-related quality of life has previously been reported superior in the revascularization group at 1- and 2-year follow-up. In this study, the 5-year results were determined. The cost-effectiveness of the treatment options was analyzed from a payer/healthcare standpoint.

Results: Altogether, 158 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Regarding the primary end point, no intergroup differences were observed for the short form 36 sum or domain scores from baseline to 5 years, except for the short form 36 role emotional domain score, with greater improvement in the nonrevascularization group (n=116, P=0.007). No intergroup differences were observed in the vascular quality of life questionnaire total and domain scores (n=116, NS) or in treadmill walking distances (n=91, NS). A revascularization strategy resulted in almost twice the cost per patient compared with a noninvasive treatment approach ($13 098 versus $6965, P=0.02).

Conclusions: After 5 years of follow-up, a revascularization strategy had lost its early benefit and did not result in any long-term improvement in health-related quality of life or walking capacity compared to a noninvasive treatment strategy. Revascularization was not a cost-effective treatment option from a payer/healthcare point of view.

Clinical trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01219842.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness; exercise; health; intermittent claudication; peripheral arterial disease; quality of life.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Cardiovascular Agents / adverse effects
  • Cardiovascular Agents / economics
  • Cardiovascular Agents / therapeutic use*
  • Combined Modality Therapy
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Exercise Therapy* / adverse effects
  • Exercise Therapy* / economics
  • Exercise Tolerance*
  • Female
  • Health Care Costs
  • Health Status
  • Humans
  • Intermittent Claudication / diagnosis
  • Intermittent Claudication / economics
  • Intermittent Claudication / physiopathology
  • Intermittent Claudication / therapy*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Peripheral Arterial Disease / diagnosis
  • Peripheral Arterial Disease / economics
  • Peripheral Arterial Disease / physiopathology
  • Peripheral Arterial Disease / therapy*
  • Prospective Studies
  • Quality of Life
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years
  • Recovery of Function
  • Sweden
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Vascular Surgical Procedures* / adverse effects
  • Vascular Surgical Procedures* / economics
  • Walking

Substances

  • Cardiovascular Agents

Associated data

  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT01219842