Chocolate Touch Versus Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon for Femoropopliteal Lesions in Diabetes: The Chocolate Touch Study.

Background: The randomized Chocolate Touch Study demonstrated that in patients undergoing treatment of femoropopliteal artery lesions, the Chocolate Touch drug-coated balloon (DCB) was safe and had superior efficacy at 12 months compared with the Lutonix DCB. We report the prespecified diabetes subanalysis comparing outcomes among patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) were randomized to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB.

Randomized Trial of Chocolate Touch Compared With Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon in Femoropopliteal Lesions (Chocolate Touch Study).

Background: First-generation drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have significantly reduced the rate of restenosis compared with balloon angioplasty alone; however, high rates of bailout stenting and dissections persist. The Chocolate Touch DCB is a nitinol constrained balloon designed to reduce acute vessel trauma and inhibit neointima formation and restenosis.

Methods: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) and superficial femoral or popliteal disease (≥70% stenosis) were randomized 1:1 to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB at 34 sites in the United States, Europe, and New Zealand.

Comparative Outcomes of Supera Interwoven Nitinol vs Bare Nitinol Stents for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Disease: Insights From the XLPAD Registry.

To report a propensity score analysis comparing outcomes of the Supera interwoven nitinol stent to bare nitinol stents (BNS) in the femoropopliteal segment. A retrospective study was conducted utilizing data extracted from the Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry ( identifier NCT01904851) on 871 patients (mean age 65.1 years; 713 men) who underwent femoropopliteal balloon angioplasty with either Supera stent implantation in 118 limbs or other contemporary BNS in 753 limbs between January 2006 and December 2016.

Carotid revascularization outcomes comparing distal filters, flow reversal, and endarterectomy.

Introduction: Contradictory outcomes exist for different methods of carotid artery revascularization. Here we provide the comparative rates of adverse events in patients after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid artery stenting (CAS) with a distal embolic protection device (EPD), and CAS with a proximal flow reversal system (FRS) from a single institution by various specialists treating carotid artery disease.

Methods: Procedural billing codes and the electronic medical records of patients undergoing revascularization for carotid artery stenosis from February 2007 through March 2010 were used for data collection.