Absence of Long-Term Benefit of Revascularization in Patients With Intermittent Claudication

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. 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.