Introduction

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects over 200 million people worldwide and the prevalence is expected to increase rapidly in the next decades [1]. About 5–10% of patients with PAD will progress to the end stage of PAD, also known as chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) which is characterized by ischemic rest pain and tissue loss (ulceration or gangrene) [2]. CLTI is associated with high amputation and mortality rates [3]. Moreover, the disease-related health care costs of CLTI patients in the Netherlands are estimated to be €7,000 to €10,000 per year, compared to €2,000 per year for patients with intermittent claudication [4].

The global prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) is currently about 463 million people, but is expected to grow to 700 million people by 2045 [5]. Because DM is the main cause of CLTI and infrapopliteal arterial disease (IPAD), the burden of the latter two is expected to grow proportionally.

The optimal revascularization approach for patients with CLTI should be based on an individualized assessment of patient risk, limb severity and anatomic complexity. Although IPAD is hard to treat due to small vessel diameter, long lesion length, multilevel disease and severe calcification [6], endovascular revascularization should be offered or at least considered for most anatomic and clinical subgroups of CLTI [7]. Endovascular revascularization offers the advantages of minimally invasiveness, local anesthesia, shorter hospital stays, potentially reduced costs and favorable short-term outcomes, but is associated with more reinterventions and recurrence of CLTI [8, 9]. In patients eligible for both open and endovascular revascularization, the BEST-CLI trial found a lower rate of major adverse limb events (MALE) or death in the bypass group, which was mainly driven by a lower rate of major reinterventions [10]. In contrast, in the BASIL-2 trial, endovascular revascularization was associated with a better amputation-free survival (AFS), which was largely driven by fewer deaths [11].

The most recent global vascular guidelines (GVG) on CLTI state that plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) remains the primary endovascular approach for anatomically suitable IPAD, as current evidence is inadequate to support other, more complex or innovative techniques [7]. Previous meta-analyses on POBA in IPAD reported a 60% primary patency, 15% limb salvage and 14% mortality at 1 year [12–14]. These rates did not change over the last few decades, despite innovations in medical therapy and revascularization techniques [15, 16], which indicates substantial room for improvement in this field. Large-scale, multicenter, prospective studies with inclusion criteria that encompass the real-world patient are warranted to generate relevant and generalizable data that can be used to develop evidence-based standards to treat this complex disease [7].

The DuTcH chRonIc Lower Limb-threatening ischEmia Registry (THRILLER) is designed to collect real world data on patients with CLTI undergoing popliteal and infrapopliteal endovascular interventions to answer multiple underexplored research questions.

Materials and methods

Study design

THRILLER is a clinician-driven, prospective, national, multicenter, observational registry including all consecutive patients that undergo a popliteal or infrapopliteal endovascular intervention for CLTI in seven Dutch hospitals (NTR ID: NL 9192; URL: https://trialregister.nl/trial/9192). All consecutive patients matching the inclusion criteria and being treated as of February 2021 are included. THRILLER is an ongoing registry in which as many patients as possible will be included according to predefined reporting standards. Hence, a well phenotyped CLTI cohort is created including both procedural data as well as mid-term follow-up outcomes to answer multiple underexplored research questions (Table 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Study objectives of THRILLER.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288912.t001

Endpoint definitions

The independent primary endpoints are primary patency, limb salvage and AFS. Primary patency is defined as freedom from a restenosis > 50%, as measured on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or duplex ultrasonography (DUS) with a peak systolic velocity-ratio of > 2.4. Limb salvage is defined as freedom from major amputation (above the ankle). AFS is defined as survival free from major amputation. Secondary endpoints are further listed in Table 2.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. All endpoints of THRILLER.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288912.t002

In the case of ambiguity or controversy an endpoint will be assessed by an independent clinical adjudication committee consisting of at least three vascular specialists (M.N., C.H. Ç.Ü.).

Study protocol

The use of optimal medical therapy (OMT) is not mandatory to be included in the study. However, there is a recommendation to follow the guidelines regarding OMT, such as the use of an antiplatelet agent, statin therapy and control of hypertension and DM in all patients with CLTI. Antithrombotic use is documented pre-operatively, postoperatively and 6–8 weeks, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months after the intervention. Furthermore, all patients are scored for patient risk, limb severity (WIfI score) and anatomic complexity (GLASS score) according to the GVG proposed approach on CLTI [7].

All patients in the registry will visit the outpatient clinic approximately 6–8 weeks and 12 months after the index procedure. At each of these follow-up visits, wound progression is scored (according to the Rutherford and WIfI scores) [7], wound photos are taken and patients are assessed for adverse events. Additionally, a systolic toe pressure measurement and DUS of the treated lesions are performed to check patency (Fig 1). The remaining follow-up visits and examinations are scheduled at the discretion of the treating physician. However, the results of these follow-up visits, in terms of wound healing and adverse events, will be documented in the database. Although there will be no mandatory visits after 12 months, the follow-up period will only end when patients are lost from follow-up or decease.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. The schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments in the Dutch chronic lower limb-threating ischemia registry (THRILLER).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288912.g001

Discussion and conclusion

A lack of high-quality evidence exists for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with CLTI and IPAD. Regarding the most recent guidelines on the management of CLTI, more than half of all recommendations were based on expert consensus or low quality evidence [7]. These guidelines also state that currently few countries maintain national registries for CLTI and therefore address the importance of ongoing surveillance with the use of well-designed, large, prospective, observational studies [7].

Prospective studies can be broadly classified into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registry-based studies. RCTs have the best methodological design and are less prone to selection bias than registries because patients are randomly assigned to a certain treatment. However, RCTs have a number of limitations, including high costs, long completion times, potential conflicts of interest and most importantly, the complexity regarding inclusion criteria [7]. Most RCTs apply strict inclusion criteria, which sometimes results in up to 50% of the total target population not meeting the inclusion criteria [18]. CLTI and IPAD are very heterogeneous in terms of clinical presentation, comorbidities and anatomical characteristics, such as multilevel disease, lesion morphology and grade of calcification. The available RCTs are scarce and results are not widely generalizable due to multiple exclusion criteria. Registry-based studies provide better real-world data and may better reflect daily treatment practice than RCTs.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) maintains 14 registries with demographic, clinical, procedural and outcomes data from more than a million vascular procedures [19]. VQI registries on infra-inguinal bypass and peripheral vascular interventions included thousands of patients with CLTI to date. However, the main limitation of this registry is the voluntary, self-reporting nature of this database leading to a high risk of selection bias. Also, in a study on CLTI patients using VQI data, only 1319 of the 5252 infrapopliteal endovascular interventions had sufficient follow-up data (> 9 months) to be included in the final analysis [20]. The excluded patients featured worse baseline characteristics than the patients who had enough follow-up. These two limitations raise serious concerns about the generalizability of the outcomes of VQI data. Lastly, VQI registries lack a standardized follow-up with imaging and several important variables, e.g. regarding anatomical complexity, are not documented [20]. THRILER addresses these issues through its design to include all consecutive eligible patients and by maintaining a data log of patients who meet the inclusion criteria but are eventually not included in the registry. Furthermore, standardized follow-up visits with wound monitoring, toe pressure measurement and DUS will be scheduled at 6–8 weeks and 12 months after the intervention.

Limitations of this study are the absence of an independent core laboratory and QoL assessments. Instead of an independent core laboratory, we try to minimize (inter-)observer bias by having procedural angiographic parameters and endpoints assessed by 1 person. Other limitations, inherent to a registry, are potential treatment-, attrition- and selection bias. Treatment bias might occur because treatments are not randomly assigned, but chosen based on patient characteristics and physician preference. Any selection bias is observed in this study by maintaining a data log of patients who are not included in the registry.

With an inclusion rate of 400–500 interventions per year, THRILLER aims to provide the largest prospective well phenotyped up-to-date dataset on treatment outcomes of popliteal and infrapopliteal endovascular interventions in the world. To our knowledge, previous dedicated below the knee (BTK) registries included a maximum of 450 endovascular interventions after an inclusion period up to six years [8, 9, 21, 22]. The aim of THRILLER is to generate clinically and scientifically relevant and generalizable data to answer multiple underexplored research questions regarding diagnostics, medication, patient selection, treatment strategies and post intervention follow-up of patients with CLTI that undergo popliteal and infrapopliteal endovascular interventions.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank everyone that helps organize the center-specific logistics in the participating medical centers, such as the inclusion and follow-up of patients.