One-year Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Drug-Coated Balloon for Femoropopliteal Artery Lesions: BEASTARS Study Results.

Background: Previous reports have shown comparable outcomes between drug-eluting stents (DESs) and drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for treating femoropopliteal artery (FPA) lesions; however, DCB outcomes include approximately 10% to 50% bailout stents. Therefore, comparing DESs and DCBs is not simple. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of DESs and DCBs in patients with symptomatic FPA disease.

Materials and methods: Using the registries of 7 institutions, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 1356 patients who underwent endovascular therapy for FPA with DESs (n=333; Eluvia, 74.0%; Zilver PTX stent, 26.0%) or DCBs without bailout stents (n=1023; IN.PACT, 67.6%; Lutonix, 32.4%). The primary outcome was the 1-year primary patency comparison between DESs and DCBs, using propensity score matching. The severity of the dissection pattern after predilatation (none or grades A-C) was included as an explanatory variable for matching. Patients with grade D dissections were excluded from the main analysis and assessed independently.

Results: After matching, the 1-year primary patency between DESs and DCBs was similar (88.8% vs 85.2%, p=0.31). By contrast, perioperative complications were frequent with DES, compared with DCB (5.1% vs 2.2%, p=0.005), and the intravascular ultrasound-evaluated minimum luminal area was significantly larger with DES than with DCB (19 mm² vs 14 mm², p<0.001). In the supplemental analysis of lesions with grade D dissection, the 1-year primary patency was significantly higher with DES than with DCB (86.1% vs 55.1%, p=0.014).

Conclusion: In FPA lesions without severe dissection (ie, no dissection or grade A-C dissection), DESs and DCBs showed comparable 1-year primary patency in matched populations. However, DCBs did not perform well with severe dissection (ie, grade D or more).

Clinical impact: The results of this study clearly define the appropriate boundaries for the "leaving nothing behind" strategy. Clinicians can now more clearly differentiate between the use of DES and DCB, based on the results of lesion preparation. Further prospective investigations with well-designed trials and larger populations are necessary to confirm these findings.