Comparison Between Interwoven Nitinol and Drug Eluting Stents for Endovascular Treatment of Femoropopliteal Artery Disease.

Haine, Axel; Schmid, Martin J; Schindewolf, Marc; Lenz, Armando; Bernhard, Sarah M.; Drexel, Heinz; Baumgartner, Iris; Dopheide, Jörn F. (2019). Comparison Between Interwoven Nitinol and Drug Eluting Stents for Endovascular Treatment of Femoropopliteal Artery Disease. European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery EJVES, 58(6), pp. 865-873. Elsevier 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.09.002

Text Haine EurJVascEndovascSurg 2019.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (360kB)

OBJECTIVES

Information on performance of different stent platforms in endovascular revascularisation of femoropopliteal lesions is controversial and scarce.

METHODS

Interwoven nitinol (INS, Supera) were compared with drug eluting (DES, Zilver PTx) stents with primary intervention for femoropopliteal lesions. The primary endpoint was time to clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (CD-TLR) within 12 months. Secondary endpoints were time to death, amputation and composite of death, amputation and CD-TLR. Due to the retrospective analysis, inverse probability treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox models were calculated to reach more similar patient populations with weights for the average treatment effect of the population. The two sensitivity analyses were propensity score matching and adjustment for covariates.

RESULTS

At 12 months, the cumulative incidence of CD-TLR in the INS group (13%) and DES group (18%) did not differ (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.56-3.31). A significant interaction between stents used and grade of calcification was observed (p = .006). HR for CD-TLR was 6.4 (95% CI 1.3-32.5) in none to mildly calcified favouring INS, and 0.3 (95% CI 0.1-1.3) for moderate to severely calcified lesions favouring DES. Stent efficiency did not differ comparing treatment of popliteal lesions (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.21-3.13). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the primary efficacy outcome for either adjusted (HR 1.16; 95% CI 0.51-2.62) or matched analysis (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.50-3.62)). Interaction of stents with calcification grade was lost for adjusted (HR 0.28; 95% CI 0.06-1.19) and matched analysis (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.10-2.91).

CONCLUSION

Both stents (INS and DES) showed comparable results regarding CD-TLR in femoropopliteal lesions, so that one stent could not be favoured over the other, even for calcified or popliteal artery lesions.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

4 since deposited on 07 Nov 2019
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item