Spot stenting versus full coverage stenting after endovascular therapy for femoropopliteal artery lesions.

OBJECTIVE

Although spot stenting (SS) for femoropopliteal (FP) lesions has been preferred compared with full coverage stenting (FCS), which stenting strategy results in better outcomes has remained unclear in the real-world clinical setting. Therefore, we compared the clinical outcomes of SS and FCS for FP lesions using a propensity-matched analysis.

METHODS

The present multicenter, retrospective study examined data from a clinical database of 1554 consecutive patients who had undergone FP endovascular therapy for symptomatic peripheral artery disease from January 2010 to December 2016. Of these patients, 1151 had undergone FP stenting. The outcome measures were primary patency and primary assisted patency obtained using propensity score matching. Interaction analysis was also performed to explore the effects of the baseline characteristics on the association between SS and primary patency.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, SS for FP lesions demonstrated a significantly lower primary patency rate compared with FCS at 3 years (29% vs 53%; P = .011). Additionally, primary assisted patency at 3 years was significantly lower in the group with SS than in the FCS group (53% vs 72%; P = .014). Interaction analysis showed that chronic total occlusion lesions, lesion location A (proximal superficial femoral artery portion), and lesion length ≥138 mm were associated with the noninferiority of SS compared with FCS for primary patency.

CONCLUSIONS

The propensity-matched analysis demonstrated that primary patency and primary assisted patency at 3 years were significantly lower with SS compared with FCS for FP lesions in real-world clinical settings. The interaction analysis suggested that SS might be suited to more complex FP lesions (ie, chronic total occlusion lesions, proximal superficial femoral artery lesion, lesion length ≥138 mm).