Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar 27;S1553-8389(20)30164-0.
doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.03.030. Online ahead of print.

Comparative 12-month Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Non-Drug-Coated Balloon Revascularization Strategy in Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia: Results From the XLPAD Registry

Affiliations

Comparative 12-month Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Non-Drug-Coated Balloon Revascularization Strategy in Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia: Results From the XLPAD Registry

Stefanos Giannopoulos et al. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. .

Abstract

Background: Endovascular therapy is often the preferred first treatment option for chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients. Drug coated balloons (DCB) reduce restenosis rates compared to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), however DCB use has not been studied systematically in patients with CLTI. Thus, the optimal treatment option for these complex lesions remains controversial.

Methods: We report on 327 patients with CLTI treated either with DCB (n = 105) or non-DCB (n = 222) for femoropopliteal disease. Data were retrieved from the Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry (NCT01904851). Two DCB types were used at the discretion of the operator: Lutonix® (BARD Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Tempe, AZ, USA) and IN.PACT AdmiralTM (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA). Odds ratios and the respective 95% confidence interval were synthesized to examine the association between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality, target limb repeat endovascular or surgical revascularization, target vessel revascularization (TVR), major and minor amputation at 12 months of follow up.

Results: The mean lesion length was 150.0 mm (SD:123.2) and 151.2 mm (SD:108.3) for the DCB and non-DCB group respectively. No difference between the two groups was detected in terms of all-cause mortality (2.86%vs2.7%,p = .94), target limb repeat endovascular or surgical revascularization (16.19%vs12.61%,p = .25), TVR (16.19%vs.11.71%,p = .26) or minor amputation (15.24%vs10.81%,p = .25) at 12 months of follow up. Although a higher incidence of 12 months major amputation was observed in the DCB group (11%vs.4%,p = .01), after adjusting for several risk factors the odds of major amputation were not statistically different between the DCB and non-DCB groups (OR:1.54;95%CI:0.53-4.51;p = .43).

Conclusions: Both DCB and non-DCB strategies are effective modalities for revascularization of patients with CLTI. No differences were identified between the DCB and non-DCB group in terms of late outcomes during 12 months of follow up.

Keywords: CLTI; Chronic limb threatening ischemia; DCB; Drug-coated balloon; Endovascular therapy; Peripheral vascular disease.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest Dr. Banerjee reports honoraria from Medtronic, Gore, Astra Zeneca, Janssen; research grants (institutional) from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Merck; Board of Directors for the Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation. Dr. Armstrong is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporated (CSI), Medtronic, Philips, and PQ Bypass. All other authors have no relationships to disclose.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback