Response to Letters Regarding Article, “Supervised Exercise Versus Primary Stenting for Claudication Resulting From Aortoiliac Peripheral Artery Disease: Six-Month Outcomes From the Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) Study”

Abstract

We thank the readers for the interest in our article1 and for their insightful comments. One such reader, Dr Maylar, comments that the 6-month data from the Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) study do not justify a firm conclusion in favor of supervised exercise (SE). We note that the study was designed with a peak-walking-time, 6-month primary outcome end point; using this prespecified end point, SE provided a superior outcome to stent revascularization. However, high-quality comparative effectiveness research is always best designed to permit >1 clinical end point over relevant timeframes. In this context, we note that primary care and vascular specialty clinicians will evaluate both 6- and 18-month time points and the full range of outcomes achieved. As Dr Maylar points out, patient-centered outcomes were not as strongly positive for SE as the treadmill outcomes. The finding of more improvement in treadmill walking by SE participants but more symptom improvement in stent revascularization participants needs to be understood. We also agree that SE requires more commitment on the part of patients (but note that exercise would ideally be done …