AI Article Synopsis

  • Background: The study investigates the effectiveness of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in treating femoropopliteal (FP) interventions for patients at high risk of restenosis after balloon pre-dilation.
  • Objectives: To compare the outcomes of DCB followed by provisional nitinol bare-metal stent implantation against systematic DES implantation, focusing on 12-month target lesion binary restenosis and secondary outcomes like revascularization and amputation rates.
  • Results: Involving 192 patients, both DCB and DES showed similar 12-month restenosis rates (22% for DCB vs. 21% for DES) and revascularization needs (14% for DCB vs

Article Abstract

Background: Drug-eluting technologies improve 12-month angiographic results of femoropopliteal (FP) interventions, but few data on the comparison between drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DES) are available.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare, after balloon pre-dilation, a strategy of DCB followed by provisional self-expanding nitinol bare-metal stent implantation with a strategy of systematic DES implantation in patients at high risk for FP restenosis.

Methods: Patients presenting with either intermittent claudication or critical limb ischemia undergoing FP intervention were randomly assigned 1:1 to DCB or DES after successful target lesion pre-dilation. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion binary restenosis, assessed using Doppler ultrasound. Secondary endpoints were freedom from target lesion revascularization and from major amputation.

Results: A total of 192 patients, 96 in the DCB group and 96 in the DES group, with 240 lesions in 225 limbs, were included. Diabetes and critical limb ischemia were present in >50% in both groups. Mean lesion length was 14 cm, and baseline target lesion occlusion reached about 60% of cases in both groups. The systematic DES strategy yielded larger post-procedural minimal luminal diameter and a lower incidence of residual dissection compared to DCB, in which nitinol stents were used in only 21% of the lesions. Twelve-month target lesion restenosis was observed in 22% of DCB-treated versus 21% of DES-treated patients (p = 0.90). Clinically driven target lesion revascularization was necessary in 14% of DCB patients versus 17% of DES patients (p = 0.50).

Conclusions: DCB was not superior to DES in the treatment of complex FP lesions in a high-risk population, yielding similar rate of restenosis and clinically driven target lesion revascularization. (Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Angioplasty With Provisional Use of Nitinol Stent Versus Systematic Implantation of Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal De Novo Lesions; NCT01969630).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.04.057DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

target lesion
28
lesion revascularization
12
systematic des
8
critical limb
8
limb ischemia
8
lesion
8
clinically driven
8
driven target
8
des
7
target
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!