Shishehbor Mehdi H, Scheinert Dierk, Jain Ashit, Brodmann Marianne, Tepe Gunnar, Ando Kenji, Krishnan Prakash, Iida Osamu, Laird John R, Schneider Peter A, Rocha-Singh Krishna J, Zeller Thomas
University Hospitals Health System, Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023 Jan 24;81(3):237-249. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.10.016. Epub 2022 Nov 1.
Endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal artery disease has shifted toward drug-coated balloons (DCB). However, limited data are available regarding the safety and efficacy of DCB vs bare-metal stents (BMS).
The purpose of this study was to compare DCB vs BMS outcomes in a propensity-adjusted, pooled analysis of 4 prospective, multicenter trials.
Patient-level data were pooled from 4 prospective, multicenter studies: the IN.PACT SFA I/II and IN.PACT SFA Japan randomized controlled DCB trials and the Complete SE and DURABILITY II single-arm BMS studies. Outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Clinical endpoints were 12-month primary patency, freedom from 36-month clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and cumulative 36-month major adverse events (MAE).
The primary analysis included 771 patients (288 DCB, 483 BMS). IPTW-adjusted demographic, baseline lesion, and procedural characteristics were matched between groups. The adjusted mean lesion length was 8.1 ± 4.7 cm DCB and 7.9 ± 4.5 cm BMS. The IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month primary patency (90.4% DCB, 80.9% BMS, P = 0.007), freedom from 36-month clinically driven target lesion revascularization (85.6% DCB, 73.7% BMS, P = 0.001), and cumulative incidence of 36-month MAE (25.3% DCB, 38.8% BMS, P < 0.001) favored DCB. There were no statistically significant differences observed in all-cause mortality, target limb major amputation, or thrombosis through 36 months.
In a patient-level, IPTW-adjusted pooled analysis of prospective, multicenter pivotal studies, DCB demonstrated significantly higher patency, lower revascularization and MAE rates, and no statistically significant differences in mortality, amputation, or thrombosis vs BMS. This analysis supports DCB use vs BMS in moderately complex femoropopliteal lesions amenable to both treatments.
股腘动脉疾病的血管内治疗已转向药物涂层球囊(DCB)。然而,关于DCB与裸金属支架(BMS)安全性和有效性的可用数据有限。
本研究的目的是在一项倾向调整后的4项前瞻性多中心试验汇总分析中比较DCB与BMS的治疗结果。
患者水平的数据来自4项前瞻性多中心研究:IN.PACT SFA I/II和IN.PACT SFA日本随机对照DCB试验以及Complete SE和DURABILITY II单臂BMS研究。使用治疗权重的逆概率(IPTW)比较结果。临床终点为12个月的原发性通畅率、36个月无临床驱动的靶病变血管重建以及36个月累积主要不良事件(MAE)。
初步分析纳入771例患者(288例DCB,483例BMS)。两组间IPTW调整后的人口统计学、基线病变和手术特征相匹配。调整后的平均病变长度在DCB组为8.1±4.7 cm,在BMS组为7.9±4.5 cm。IPTW调整后的12个月原发性通畅率(DCB组90.4%,BMS组80.9%,P = 0.007)、36个月无临床驱动的靶病变血管重建率(DCB组85.6%,BMS组73.7%,P = 0.001)以及36个月MAE累积发生率(DCB组25.3%,BMS组38.8%,P < 0.001)均有利于DCB。在36个月内,全因死亡率、靶肢体大截肢或血栓形成方面未观察到统计学显著差异。
在一项患者水平的、IPTW调整后的前瞻性多中心关键研究汇总分析中,DCB显示出显著更高的通畅率、更低的血管重建率和MAE发生率,且与BMS相比,在死亡率、截肢或血栓形成方面无统计学显著差异。该分析支持在适合两种治疗的中度复杂股腘病变中使用DCB而非BMS。