Clinical outcomes in patients with CLTI after femoropopliteal intervention with a drug-coated balloon or stenting.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Journal of Vascular Surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-18 DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2025.02.010
Taira Kobayashi, Mitsuyoshi Takahara, Naoki Fujimura, Terutoshi Yamaoka, Daisuke Matsuda, Takanobu Okazaki, Shingo Mochizuki, Satoru Nagatomi, Masami Shingaki, Masayuki Endo, Kyosuke Hosokawa, Tadashi Furuyama, Tsunehiro Shintani, Yasuhito Sekimoto, Hidetoshi Uchiyama, Ryoichi Kyuragi, Susumu Watada, Koichi Morisaki, Hiroki Mitsuoka, Yohei Kawai, Keita Hayashi, Tsuyoshi Shibata, Shunsuke Kamei, Hideaki Obara, Shigeo Ichihashi
{"title":"Clinical outcomes in patients with CLTI after femoropopliteal intervention with a drug-coated balloon or stenting.","authors":"Taira Kobayashi, Mitsuyoshi Takahara, Naoki Fujimura, Terutoshi Yamaoka, Daisuke Matsuda, Takanobu Okazaki, Shingo Mochizuki, Satoru Nagatomi, Masami Shingaki, Masayuki Endo, Kyosuke Hosokawa, Tadashi Furuyama, Tsunehiro Shintani, Yasuhito Sekimoto, Hidetoshi Uchiyama, Ryoichi Kyuragi, Susumu Watada, Koichi Morisaki, Hiroki Mitsuoka, Yohei Kawai, Keita Hayashi, Tsuyoshi Shibata, Shunsuke Kamei, Hideaki Obara, Shigeo Ichihashi","doi":"10.1016/j.jvs.2025.02.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endovascular treatment (EVT) for patients with an occlusive lesion of the femoropopliteal artery is performed worldwide due to its effectiveness. However, lesions in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are complex and a major concern in superficial femoral artery (SFA) EVT. Despite this, a detailed study of SFA EVT, and especially selection of the final device as a drug-coated balloon (DCB) or a stent, has not been performed in patients with CLTI.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the clinical outcomes of SFA EVT using a DCB or a stent in patients with CLTI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter retrospective observational study was performed at 21 Japanese centers. Comparisons were made between patients undergoing initial SFA EVT with a DCB or stenting after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to control for potential confounding (patient demographics, comorbidities, medications, and procedural details). The primary outcome measure was major adverse limb events (MALE). We adopted cause-specific hazard models, using Fine and Gray's proportional hazards model in which death was treated as a competing risk. Secondary outcome measures were also evaluated: 1) technical success, 2) slow flow, 3) death within 30 days, 4) major adverse events within 30 days, 5) restenosis, 6) target lesion revascularization (TLR), 7) acute occlusion, 8) wound healing, 9) major amputation, and 10) all-cause mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 900 CLTI cases that underwent EVT with a DCB (n=458) or stenting (n=442) and had a median follow-up period of 17.5 (interquartile range, 6.2-31.9) months. The DCB group had a lower risk of MALE than the stent group, with a hazard ratio of .68 (95% confidence interval (CI), .52-.89; P=.005). Subsequent analysis for the secondary outcome measures demonstrated that the DCB group had a higher prevalence of postprocedural slow flow and a lower incidence rate of acute occlusion (both P < .005 after Bonferroni correction).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DCB angioplasty had a lower risk of MALE than stenting. These results suggest that a DCB might be more beneficial in initial SFA intervention in patients with CLTI.</p>","PeriodicalId":17475,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2025.02.010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endovascular treatment (EVT) for patients with an occlusive lesion of the femoropopliteal artery is performed worldwide due to its effectiveness. However, lesions in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are complex and a major concern in superficial femoral artery (SFA) EVT. Despite this, a detailed study of SFA EVT, and especially selection of the final device as a drug-coated balloon (DCB) or a stent, has not been performed in patients with CLTI.

Objectives: To compare the clinical outcomes of SFA EVT using a DCB or a stent in patients with CLTI.

Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational study was performed at 21 Japanese centers. Comparisons were made between patients undergoing initial SFA EVT with a DCB or stenting after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to control for potential confounding (patient demographics, comorbidities, medications, and procedural details). The primary outcome measure was major adverse limb events (MALE). We adopted cause-specific hazard models, using Fine and Gray's proportional hazards model in which death was treated as a competing risk. Secondary outcome measures were also evaluated: 1) technical success, 2) slow flow, 3) death within 30 days, 4) major adverse events within 30 days, 5) restenosis, 6) target lesion revascularization (TLR), 7) acute occlusion, 8) wound healing, 9) major amputation, and 10) all-cause mortality.

Results: The study included 900 CLTI cases that underwent EVT with a DCB (n=458) or stenting (n=442) and had a median follow-up period of 17.5 (interquartile range, 6.2-31.9) months. The DCB group had a lower risk of MALE than the stent group, with a hazard ratio of .68 (95% confidence interval (CI), .52-.89; P=.005). Subsequent analysis for the secondary outcome measures demonstrated that the DCB group had a higher prevalence of postprocedural slow flow and a lower incidence rate of acute occlusion (both P < .005 after Bonferroni correction).

Conclusions: DCB angioplasty had a lower risk of MALE than stenting. These results suggest that a DCB might be more beneficial in initial SFA intervention in patients with CLTI.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
18.60%
发文量
1469
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Vascular Surgery ® aims to be the premier international journal of medical, endovascular and surgical care of vascular diseases. It is dedicated to the science and art of vascular surgery and aims to improve the management of patients with vascular diseases by publishing relevant papers that report important medical advances, test new hypotheses, and address current controversies. To acheive this goal, the Journal will publish original clinical and laboratory studies, and reports and papers that comment on the social, economic, ethical, legal, and political factors, which relate to these aims. As the official publication of The Society for Vascular Surgery, the Journal will publish, after peer review, selected papers presented at the annual meeting of this organization and affiliated vascular societies, as well as original articles from members and non-members.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia vof the Leg (BASIL)-2 Trial: Analysis of the Timing and Causes of Death in Participants Randomised to an Infrapopliteal Vein Bypass or Best Endovascular Treatment First Revascularisation Strategy A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 24 Month Patency After Endovenous Stenting of Superior Vena Cava, Subclavian, and Brachiocephalic Vein Stenosis Elective Surgical Repair of Popliteal Artery Aneurysms with Posterior Approach vs. Endovascular Exclusion: Early and Long Term Outcomes of Multicentre PARADE Study
×
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