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

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.