These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty vs. Conventional Balloon Angioplasty for Endovascular Treatment of Common Femoral Artery Atherosclerotic Disease.
    Author: Cantu D, Jawaid O, Kokkinidis D, Giannopoulos S, Valle JA, Waldo SW, Singh GD, Armstrong EJ.
    Journal: Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2020 Jul; 21(7):867-874. PubMed ID: 31761636.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic disease of the common femoral artery (CFA), commonly associated with multilevel disease affecting the femoropopliteal segment, can cause claudication or contribute to critical limb ischemia. Although endovascular therapy for the management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) has been increasingly utilized, its role in CFA lesions remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of drug (DCB) vs non drug coated balloon angioplasty (BA) at the CFA segment. METHODS: In this two-center study, we identified 154 patients treated either with DCB (n = 47) or BA (n = 107) for CFA lesions. Hazard ratios (HR) and the respective 95% confidence interval (CI) were synthesized to examine the association between the two groups in terms of target lesion revascularization (TLR), limb loss, and major adverse limb event (MALE) at 12 and 24 months of follow up. RESULTS: This real-world population included a high percentage of patients with critical limb ischemia (43%) and moderate to severe lesion calcification (75%). Adjunctive atherectomy was performed in 97.9% of DCB cases (N = 46/47) and 44.7% of BA cases (N = 51/114). The overall procedural success rate was 95% without any differences between the two groups. Post-angioplasty dissections were observed in 15 cases [DCB: 8.5% (N = 4/47) vs BA: 9.7% (N = 11/113); p = .81], while distal embolization occurred in one patient in the DCB group and one in the BA group (p = .52). Provisional stenting was more commonly necessary in BA vs. DCB cases (12.3% vs 2.13%, p = .044). Physiologic assessment during follow up demonstrated a better mean 2-year ABI for the DCB group (mean: 0.9; SD: 0.2) vs BA group (mean: 0.6; SD: 0.4), although statistical significance was not reached (p = .06). No difference between the two groups was detected in terms of freedom from TLR (DCB: 75.5% vs BA: 86.8%; HR: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.46-3.67; p = .61), freedom from limb loss (DCB: 83.8% vs BA: 83.6%; HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.36-2.99; p = .94) or freedom from MALE (DCB: 83.5% vs BA: 78%; HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.26-1.99; p = .53) at 24 m of follow up. However, at the end of follow up more deaths were observed in patients treated with BA than DCB (DCB: 14.9% vs BA: 31.7%; p = .03). Patients who required provisional stenting were at higher risk for limb loss 2 years after the initial procedure (multivariate: HR: 4.54; 95% CI: 1.09-18.85; p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Both DCB and non-DCB strategies are effective modalities for revascularization of patients with CFA lesions. Larger prospective studies are necessary to determine the relative benefit, if any, of drug-eluting technologies for the treatment of common femoral artery disease.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]