Atherectomy Followed by Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Surgery for Symptomatic Deep Femoral Artery Arteriosclerotic Disease.

IF 1.7 2区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Journal of Endovascular Therapy Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1177/15266028241284443
Giovanni Battista Torsello, Ryan Gouveia E Melo, Thomas Zeller, Tanja Böhme, Grigorios Korosoglou, Raphael Coscas, Konstantinos Stavroulakis, Dimitrios Kapetanios, Giovanni Federico Torsello, Bahaa Nasr
{"title":"Atherectomy Followed by Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Surgery for Symptomatic Deep Femoral Artery Arteriosclerotic Disease.","authors":"Giovanni Battista Torsello, Ryan Gouveia E Melo, Thomas Zeller, Tanja Böhme, Grigorios Korosoglou, Raphael Coscas, Konstantinos Stavroulakis, Dimitrios Kapetanios, Giovanni Federico Torsello, Bahaa Nasr","doi":"10.1177/15266028241284443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Limited data are available regarding endovascular therapy of arteriosclerotic lesions of the deep femoral artery (DFA). In this study, we compare the outcomes of atherectomy combined with drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and open repair of DFA lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a multicenter retrospective registry of patients with peripheral artery occlusive disease Rutherford categories 2 to 5 treated by surgical profundaplasty (SP) or atherectomy followed by DCB for DFA lesions (symptomatic DFA). The primary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Overall mortality, target limb reinterventions, major amputation, and major adverse limb events (MALEs) were additionally analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 373 patients treated for an arteriosclerotic lesion of the DFA between February 2015 and August 2021 were included, 301 treated by SP and 72 with atherectomy and DCB. The rates of chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) were 42.2% and 22.2% (p<0.002) for the surgical and endovascular groups, respectively. A previous DFA intervention was more frequent in the endovascular group (30.6% vs 15.3%; p<0.003). Patients who had an open repair were more likely to have an occlusion of the profunda (34.9% vs 19.7%, p=0.014), severe calcified lesions (26.5% vs 5.6%, p=0.001), and lesions longer than 20 mm (95.7% vs 88.7%, p=0.024). After propensity score matching, no significant differences were found with regard to technical and hemodynamic success. At 24 months, no difference was found in terms of freedom from CD-TLR (95.7% vs 96.8%), freedom from all-cause mortality (94.2% vs 98.5%), freedom from MALE (90.4% vs 93.9%), and amputation-free survival (93.8% vs 97%). Following endovascular therapy, length of stay was significantly lower (p<0.001) and any reintervention on the index limb was more frequent (p=0.039).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with CLTI, occlusion of profunda, severe calcified lesions, and longer lesions are more frequently treated by open surgery, while reinterventions are more commonly treated by atherectomy and DCB. In patients with comparable clinical and lesion characteristics after matching, endovascular and surgical reconstruction of DFA lesions showed similar mid-term clinical outcomes. However, the risk of reintervention at the index limb is higher after endovascular treatment. Randomized studies are now warranted to compare both techniques in terms of medical and financial aspects.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>Atherectomy followed by DCB of symptomatic DFA is safe and effective. In patients with comparable clinical and lesion characteristics, outcomes are comparable with surgery. However, the risk of reintervention at the index limb is higher after endovascular treatment. Therefore, whenever possible an additional outflow vessel revascularization should be performed by the time of the primary intervention. Randomized studies are warranted to compare endovascular techniques and open surgery also under economic aspects.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"15266028241284443"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028241284443","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Limited data are available regarding endovascular therapy of arteriosclerotic lesions of the deep femoral artery (DFA). In this study, we compare the outcomes of atherectomy combined with drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and open repair of DFA lesions.

Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective registry of patients with peripheral artery occlusive disease Rutherford categories 2 to 5 treated by surgical profundaplasty (SP) or atherectomy followed by DCB for DFA lesions (symptomatic DFA). The primary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Overall mortality, target limb reinterventions, major amputation, and major adverse limb events (MALEs) were additionally analyzed.

Results: A total of 373 patients treated for an arteriosclerotic lesion of the DFA between February 2015 and August 2021 were included, 301 treated by SP and 72 with atherectomy and DCB. The rates of chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) were 42.2% and 22.2% (p<0.002) for the surgical and endovascular groups, respectively. A previous DFA intervention was more frequent in the endovascular group (30.6% vs 15.3%; p<0.003). Patients who had an open repair were more likely to have an occlusion of the profunda (34.9% vs 19.7%, p=0.014), severe calcified lesions (26.5% vs 5.6%, p=0.001), and lesions longer than 20 mm (95.7% vs 88.7%, p=0.024). After propensity score matching, no significant differences were found with regard to technical and hemodynamic success. At 24 months, no difference was found in terms of freedom from CD-TLR (95.7% vs 96.8%), freedom from all-cause mortality (94.2% vs 98.5%), freedom from MALE (90.4% vs 93.9%), and amputation-free survival (93.8% vs 97%). Following endovascular therapy, length of stay was significantly lower (p<0.001) and any reintervention on the index limb was more frequent (p=0.039).

Conclusion: Patients with CLTI, occlusion of profunda, severe calcified lesions, and longer lesions are more frequently treated by open surgery, while reinterventions are more commonly treated by atherectomy and DCB. In patients with comparable clinical and lesion characteristics after matching, endovascular and surgical reconstruction of DFA lesions showed similar mid-term clinical outcomes. However, the risk of reintervention at the index limb is higher after endovascular treatment. Randomized studies are now warranted to compare both techniques in terms of medical and financial aspects.

Clinical impact: Atherectomy followed by DCB of symptomatic DFA is safe and effective. In patients with comparable clinical and lesion characteristics, outcomes are comparable with surgery. However, the risk of reintervention at the index limb is higher after endovascular treatment. Therefore, whenever possible an additional outflow vessel revascularization should be performed by the time of the primary intervention. Randomized studies are warranted to compare endovascular techniques and open surgery also under economic aspects.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对有症状的股深动脉动脉硬化症进行动脉粥样硬化切除术后再进行药物涂层球囊血管成形术与手术治疗的对比。
目的:有关股深动脉(DFA)动脉硬化病变的血管内治疗数据有限。在这项研究中,我们比较了动脉粥样硬化切除术联合药物涂层球囊(DCB)血管成形术和股深动脉病变开放性修复术的疗效:这是一项多中心回顾性登记研究,研究对象是外周动脉闭塞性疾病卢瑟福分类 2 至 5 级患者,这些患者均接受过外科深部成形术(SP)或动脉粥样硬化切除术联合 DCB 治疗 DFA 病变(无症状 DFA)。主要终点是临床驱动的靶病变血管再通(CD-TLR)。此外,还对总死亡率、靶肢再介入、主要截肢和主要肢体不良事件(MALEs)进行了分析:共纳入了2015年2月至2021年8月期间因DFA动脉硬化病变接受治疗的373名患者,其中301人接受了SP治疗,72人接受了动脉粥样硬化切除术和DCB治疗。慢性肢体威胁性缺血(CLTI)的发生率分别为42.2%和22.2%(P结论:CLTI、深部闭塞、严重钙化病变和病变较长的患者多采用开放手术治疗,而再次介入治疗多采用动脉粥样硬化切除术和DCB。在匹配后临床和病变特征相似的患者中,DFA 病变的血管内重建和外科重建显示出相似的中期临床结果。然而,血管内治疗后在指数肢体再次介入的风险较高。现在需要进行随机研究,从医疗和经济方面对两种技术进行比较:临床影响:对有症状的DFA进行动脉粥样硬化切除术后再进行DCB治疗是安全有效的。对于临床和病变特征相似的患者,其疗效与手术相当。然而,血管内治疗后,再次介入指数肢体的风险较高。因此,在可能的情况下,应在初次介入治疗前进行额外的流出血管再通手术。有必要进行随机研究,以比较血管内技术和开放手术的经济性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Endovascular Therapy (formerly the Journal of Endovascular Surgery) was established in 1994 as a forum for all physicians, scientists, and allied healthcare professionals who are engaged or interested in peripheral endovascular techniques and technology. An official publication of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists (ISEVS), the Journal of Endovascular Therapy publishes peer-reviewed articles of interest to clinicians and researchers in the field of peripheral endovascular interventions.
期刊最新文献
The Value of Different Systemic Inflammatory Response Indicators in the Long-term Prognosis of Type B Aortic Dissection Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair. Effect of Statins on the Prognosis After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Patients With Acute Type B Aortic Dissection. Potential of D-Dimer as a Tool to Rule Out Sac Expansion in Patients With Persistent Type 2 Endoleaks After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. Long-Term Outcomes and Late Complications of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using the GORE TAG or Conformable GORE TAG. Long-term Outcomes of the AcoArt II-BTK Trial: Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Compared With Uncoated Balloons for the Treatment of Infrapopliteal Artery Lesions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1