Baig Muhammad, Kwok Michael, Aldairi Ammer, Imran Hafiz M, Khan Mohammad S, Ngmadu Kyari Sumayin, Hyder Omar N, Aronow Herbert D, Soukas Peter A
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Providence VA Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island.
J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2022 May 20;1(4):100374. doi: 10.1016/j.jscai.2022.100374. eCollection 2022 Jul-Aug.
Common femoral artery (CFA) disease is often heavily calcified and prone to low patency rates with endovascular treatment compared with surgical endarterectomy. Recent data suggest promising short-term outcomes with the adjunct use of intravascular lithotripsy; however, data on its midterm effectiveness are lacking. We compared clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) between patients receiving drug-coated balloon angioplasty with adjunct intravascular lithotripsy (IVL-DCB) vs adjunct atherectomy (Ath-DCB) for treatment of CFA disease.
In a single-center retrospective cohort study, patients receiving IVL-DCB vs Ath-DCB for symptomatic CFA disease from January 2015 to March 2020 were included. The primary outcome was cumulative CD-TLR with angiographic restenosis ≥50%, estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis during 18-month follow-up and compared by log-rank test.
Total of 68 CFA lesions (Ath-DCB, 35; IVL-DCB, 33) were included. Patients had a mean age (standard deviation) of 72 (8) years and were predominantly male (63.3%) and White (92%). Mean baseline angiographic stenosis was 78% (11) in the Ath-DCB group and 70% (10) in the IVL-DCB group ( = .002). Technical success was 100% in both groups. One flow-limiting dissection occurred in IVL-DCB requiring stent placement, whereas 2 bailout stentings were performed in the Ath-DCB group. Cumulative Kaplan-Meier freedom from CD-TLR was 91.2% (95% CI, 81.6%-100%) in the Ath-DCB group vs 79.4% (95% CI, 64.6%-94.2%) in the IVL-DCB group (Log-rank = .167).
The safety and effectiveness of IVL-DCB were comparable to those of Ath-DCB in the treatment of calcified CFA disease during the 18-month follow-up. Further studies are required to verify these findings.
股总动脉(CFA)疾病常常严重钙化,与外科动脉内膜切除术相比,血管内治疗的通畅率较低。近期数据显示,血管内冲击波碎石术辅助治疗有良好的短期疗效;然而,缺乏关于其中期有效性的数据。我们比较了接受药物涂层球囊血管成形术联合血管内冲击波碎石术(IVL-DCB)与联合斑块旋切术(Ath-DCB)治疗CFA疾病患者的临床驱动靶病变血运重建(CD-TLR)情况。
在一项单中心回顾性队列研究中,纳入了2015年1月至2020年3月因有症状的CFA疾病接受IVL-DCB或Ath-DCB治疗的患者。主要结局是累积CD-TLR且血管造影显示再狭窄≥50%,通过Kaplan-Meier分析在18个月随访期间进行估计,并通过对数秩检验进行比较。
共纳入68处CFA病变(Ath-DCB组35处;IVL-DCB组33处)。患者的平均年龄(标准差)为72(8)岁,主要为男性(63.3%)和白人(92%)。Ath-DCB组平均基线血管造影狭窄率为78%(11),IVL-DCB组为70%(10)(P = 0.002)。两组技术成功率均为100%。IVL-DCB组发生1例需要置入支架的限流性夹层,而Ath-DCB组进行了2次补救性支架置入。Ath-DCB组累积Kaplan-Meier法无CD-TLR的生存率为91.2%(95%CI,81.6%-100%),IVL-DCB组为79.4%(95%CI,64.6%-94.2%)(对数秩P = 0.167)。
在18个月随访期间,IVL-DCB在治疗钙化性CFA疾病方面的安全性和有效性与Ath-DCB相当。需要进一步研究来验证这些发现。