Revascularization Strategies for Patients With Femoropopliteal Peripheral Artery Disease

Early Tissue Resection Versus Watchful Waiting After Revascularization for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Meta-Analysis

No consensus or guideline has been established regarding the optimal timing of tissue resection after revascularization in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). This study aimed to compare early tissue resection and watchful waiting after revascularization regarding the outcomes of patients with CLTI. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for relevant randomized trials and observational studies published from their inception to May 1, 2024. In total, five articles were analyzed. The results showed that the early tissue resection group had a higher wound healing rate than the watchful waiting group (I2 = 26%, odds ratio [OR] = 2.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32 to 5.92, P = 0.007). However, the rate of major amputation was significantly higher in the early tissue resection group than in the watchful waiting group (I2 = 5%, OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.86, P < 0.001), and wound recurrence rate in the early tissue resection group was relatively higher than that in the watchful waiting group (I2 = 0%, OR = 2.42, 95% CI: 0.99 to 5.93, P = 0.05). No statistical significance was found in the rate of postoperative mortality (I2 = 2%, OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.41, P = 0.94) and wound healing time (I2 = 97%, standardized mean difference = -105.92, 95% CI -232.96 to 21.13, P = 0.10) between the early tissue resection and watchful waiting groups. For patients without signs of infection, a watchful waiting strategy could reduce the risk of major amputation.

Post hoc analysis of the SuperB and Zilverpass trials for treatment of long and complex superficial femoral artery lesions

OBJECTIVE

In two randomized controlled trials, the outcomes of endovascular treatment of complex femoropopliteal arterial lesions were compared with bypass surgery and considered a valid alternative treatment. The aim of this study was to compare both endovascular treatment options with the hypothesis that implantation of heparin-bonded self-expanding covered stents (Viabahn [SECS]) or drug-eluting stents (ZilverPTX [DES]) are related to similar clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

In a post-hoc analysis, the SuperB trial and Zilverpass databases were merged. Patients in the endovascular treatment arms were included, and data was analyzed in an intention-to-treat (ITT) and a per-protocol (PP) fashion. Data included baseline and lesion characteristics, procedural details, and follow-up data. The primary endpoint of this study was primary patency at 1-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were secondary patency, target lesion revascularization (TLR), limb loss, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 176 patients were included; 63 in the SECS arm and 113 in the DES arm. Through 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in primary patency (ITT: 63.4% vs 71.1%: P = .183 and PP: 60.8% vs 71.1%; P = .100). Secondary patency rates were not significantly different in the ITT analysis (86.5% vs 95.1%; P = .054), but in the PP analysis, there was a significant difference in favor of the DES group (SECS, 85.6% vs DES, 95.1%; P = .038). There was no significant difference in freedom from TLR between groups (79.6% vs 77.0%; P = .481). No major amputations were performed in the SECS group, and two were performed in the DES group (1.8%). Survival rate was 98.2% in the SECS group, and 91.3% in the DES group after 1-year follow-up (P = .106). Based on diagnosis (intermittent claudication vs chronic limb-threatening ischemia) no differences between patients with intermittent claudication and chronic limb-threatening ischemia were observed in primary patency, secondary patency and freedom from TLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of complex femoropopliteal arterial disease with the heparin-bonded Viabahn endoprosthesis and the Zilver PTX drug-eluting stent are related to similar primary and secondary patency, and TLR rates at 1 year, except for secondary patency in the PP analysis. This study further supports the endovascular treatment of long complex lesions in the femoropopliteal artery.

Five-year outcomes of the GORE VIABAHN Endoprosthesis for the treatment of complex femoropopliteal lesions from a Japanese postmarket surveillance study

Introduction: The safety and effectiveness of the GORE VIABAHN Endoprosthesis for treatment of symptomatic patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and complex femoropopliteal (FP) lesions was assessed in a real-world Japanese practice setting. Methods: A prospective, multicenter, postmarket surveillance study was conducted from 2016 to 2017 at 64 sites in Japan. Symptomatic patients with PAD and FP lesions ⩾ 10 cm and reference vessel diameters ranging from 4.0 to 7.5 mm were eligible for enrollment. Outcome measures evaluated at 5 years were primary patency (PP), primary-assisted patency (PAP), secondary patency (SP), freedom from target lesion revascularization (fTLR), occurrence of device- or procedure-related serious adverse events (SAEs), and stent fractures. Results: A total of 321 patients were enrolled and were a mean age of 73.9 ± 8.7 years; 77.3% were men and 26.5% had chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). The mean lesion length was 23.6 ± 6.6 cm and the frequency with TASC II C/D lesions and chronic total occlusions was 86.6% and 70.4%, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimated PP, PAP, SP, and fTLR at 5 years was 62.4%, 74.1%, 82.3%, and 75.9%, respectively. The mean ankle-brachial index was 0.92 ± 0.15 and the mean improvement in Rutherford class was 2.3 ± 1.4, which was maintained through 5 years. The rate of cumulative device- or procedure-related SAEs through 5 years was 19.9% with only 9.3% of those occurring after the first year. No stent fractures were observed through 5 years by x-ray evaluation. Conclusion: The 5-year safety and efficacy outcomes of the endoprosthesis were clinically acceptable for treating complex FP lesions in a real-world cohort of Japanese patients with PAD. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04706273).

Outcomes for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia After Direct and Indirect Endovascular and Surgical Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to determine the clinical outcome differences between patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent direct versus indirect angiosome revascularization using either the surgical or endovascular approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data sources used for article selection included PubMed, Embase/Medline, Cochrane reviews, and Web of Science (All studies were in English and included up to September 2023). All articles included were comparative in design, including retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes between direct and indirect angiosome-guided revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A random-effects model was used to determine the measure of association between direct revascularization and amputation-free survival, wound healing, and overall survival. Publication bias was assessed with both Begg's and Egger's test, and heterogeneity was calculated using an I2.

RESULTS

Data from 9 articles were analyzed and reported in this review. Direct revascularization was associated with improved amputation-free survival (odds ratio [OR]=2.632, confidence interval [CI]: 1.625, 4.265), binary wound healing (OR=2.262, CI: 1.518, 3.372), and overall survival (OR=1.757, CI: 1.176, 2.625). Time until wound healed was not associated with either direct or indirect revascularization (Standard Mean Difference [SMD]=-2.15, p=0.11). There was a low risk of bias across all studies according to the RoB 2.0 tool.

CONCLUSION

Direct revascularization is associated with improved amputation-free survival, overall survival, and wound healing in chronic limb-threatening ischemic patients compared to the indirect approach.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Preservation of the lower extremity is critical for preventing mortality and maintaining independence. The benefit of angiosome-guided revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia remains controversial. The authors of this article aim to review the current literature and compare direct and indirect angiosome-guided intervention for preserving the lower extremity. Current findings suggest direct angiosome-guided intervention reduces amputation rates and improves survival; however, many trials neglect to address the multifactorial approach needed in wound care management.

Impact on Hospital Resource Utilization of Endoluminal Bypass Using the Viabahn Endoprosthesis with Heparin Bioactive Surface Compared With Surgical Femoropopliteal Bypass

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of heparin-bonded endoprosthesis compared with femoropopliteal bypass on key hospital resources and revenues up to 1-year follow-up.

DESIGN

A 2-arm scenario resource consumption data analysis was modeled based on a multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Six centers in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 100 patients were assigned to 2 arms (50 each arm). The first arm evaluated endovascular treatment using the heparin-bonded Viabahn endoprosthesis and the second the femoropopliteal bypass. Resource consumption rates were compared between arms.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES

Resource consumption rates, including hospital stay for bypass procedure, operating room time, type of anesthesia, number of used (endo)grafts, use of different types of bed locations (vascular ward, medium or intensive care), readmission for wound infections, and reinterventions over a period of 12 months.

RESULTS

Endovascular repair used fewer hospital resources, with an overall difference of €149.983. Hospital stay was 118 days less (261 vs 379), including 21 fewer days in medium/intensive care (5 vs 26) and 50 fewer operating room hours (100 vs 150). Fewer patients required general anesthesia (31 vs 39), and there were less surgical site infections (3 vs 12). In the surgical bypass group, there were 18 fewer days of hospital stay related to reinterventions (80 vs 62), and the cost of the devices was €309.996, cheaper. The total monetary difference was € 160.013, in favor of the femoropopliteal bypass (€3.200, per patient).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair of the superficial femoral artery reduces the use of valuable hospital resources. Its major limitation is the cost of the devices, which should be balanced against the reduction in peri-procedural morbidity and faster recovery. In the context of shortage of hospital beds, it offers capacity benefits, allowing for the treatment of more patients overall. These benefits may outweigh the fewer reinterventions in the surgical bypass group.

REGISTRATION

The SuperB Trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov; NCT-ID: NCT01220245.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Modeling is a useful technique to predict the impact of treatment modalities on hospital resources and revenue. This study uses real-world data from the SuperB Trial to compare two treatment strategies of superficial femoral artery disease, reflecting actual clinical practice and patient outcomes. The analysis focused on direct costs associated with hospital resources and device usage without considering indirect costs or long-term cost-effectiveness. The analysis showed that endovascular repair reduces the use of valuable hospital resources. Its major limitation is device costs, which should be balanced against the reduction in peri-procedural morbidity and faster recovery. In the context of shortage of hospital beds, it offers capacity benefits, allowing for the treatment of more patients overall.

Pharmacotherapy and revascularization strategies of peripheral artery disease

The global epidemiological transition of atherosclerotic vascular diseases is witnessing a rapid redistribution of its burden, shifting from high-income to low- and middle-income countries. With a wide clinical spectrum, spanning from intermittent claudication to more complex critical limb threatening ischemia, nonhealing ulcers, gangrene as well as acute limb ischemia, peripheral artery disease is often faced with the challenges of under-diagnosis and under-treatment despite its high prevalence. The management of peripheral arterial disease in patients with multiple comorbidities presents a formidable challenge and remains a pressing global health concern. In this review, we aim to provide an in-depth overview of the pathophysiology of peripheral artery disease and explore evidence-based management strategies encompassing pharmacological, lifestyle, interventional, and surgical approaches. By addressing these challenges, the review contributes to a better understanding of the evolving landscape of peripheral artery disease, offering insights into effective and holistic management strategies.

Endovascular Interventions for Peripheral Artery Disease: A Contemporary Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is an increasingly prevalent but frequently underdiagnosed condition that can be associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. While an initial noninvasive approach is the cornerstone of management, revascularization is often pursued for patients with treatment-refractory claudication or chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). In this review, we discuss the current state of endovascular interventions for PAD and explore the many new emerging technologies.

RECENT FINDINGS

The last decade has resulted in numerous advances in PAD interventions including the ongoing evolution of drug-coated devices, novel approaches to complex lesions, and contemporary evidence from large clinical trials for CLTI. Advances in endovascular management have allowed for increasingly complex lesions to be tackled percutaneously. Future directions for the field include the continued evolution in device technology, continued development of state-of-the-art techniques to revascularization of complex lesions, and increased collaboration between a largely multidisciplinary field.

[Angioplasty with Sirolimus-coated Balloon: the New Standard in the Treatment of PAD?]

Endovascular revascularisation with paclitaxel-coated balloons for the treatment of peripheral artery disease has been shown to be an effective therapeutic option in the femoropopliteal segment. The antiproliferative effect of paclitaxel prevents restenosis. In contrast, in the infra-popliteal segment, the evidence is currently conflicting. However, there is evidence of an increased risk of amputation and mortality from the second year after angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloons. This may be due to a dose-dependent cytotoxic effect of paclitaxel. Sirolimus-coated balloons might therefore be an alternative because sirolimus is cytostatic rather than cytotoxic and thus has a wide therapeutic window.Three single-arm pilot studies (50, 25, and 50 patients, respectively) show that angioplasty with sirolimus-coated balloons leads to comparable results to those reported from paclitaxel-coated balloons (late lumen loss at 6 months: 0.29 mm; primary patency at 12 months: femoropopliteal 79%-82%, infra-popliteal 59%; freedom from target lesion revascularization at 12 months: femoropopliteal 83%-94%, infra-popliteal 86%). Randomised controlled trials comparing standard balloon angioplasty and paclitaxel-coated balloons for the treatment of intermittent claudication or chronic limb-threatening ischaemia are active and are expected to provide efficacy and safety results from mid 2024.This review presents the results of pilot studies on angioplasty with sirolimus-coated balloons for the treatment of peripheral artery disease and reviews currently ongoing randomised controlled trials.

[Atherectomy with a Novel Device Offering Wider Options]

Catheter-based atherectomy has been discussed for some years, although the conclusions have been controversial. Recent study data did show the feasibility of multifunctional atherectomy devices for complex lesion morphologies, with moderate material use. This is then thus an alternative to bypass surgery, although a direct comparison is lacking.The results of the ByCross approval study were compared to technical and clinical data from various atherectomy systems in terms of range of indication, limitations as defined by the manufacturer, the success and complication rate and the instructions for use. As in many recent studies, a residual stenosis ≤ 50% after atherectomy and ≤ 30% in the completion imaging was defined as the primary endpoint and proof of technical success.Lesions recruited for the ByCross study were more complex than in other studies, with respect to the lesion length (124.7 mm vs. 34 mm in the EASE study and 67.2 mm in the VISION study) and the degree of stenosis (99.4% vs. 88.5% in the EASE and 78,7% in the VISION study). Calcification was also more severe - as defined by the PACSS (Peripheral Artery Calcification Severity Score). ByCross allowed recanalisation of lesions without wire passage prior to atherectomy (26.82%), which is a must for all other systems. The variable tip diameter of the ByCross can achieve a lumen gain of 4.7 mm without tip or wire exchange or run time limits. The 0% rate of embolic events, which is unique for atherectomy device approval studies, can be explained by the working principle and the high aspiration rate. No vessel injuries occurred, and the 6-month follow-up results showed 0% revascularisation rate.New generation atherectomy systems offer safe and effective enlargement of the endovascular portfolio. The ByCross device is an atherectomy, thrombectomy and crossing device free from investment and has a wider range of indications for the iliac and the femorodistal segments, which supports ByCross atherectomy as an alternative for bypass surgery.

Application of first-generation high- and low-dose drug-coated balloons to the femoropopliteal artery disease: a sub-analysis of the POPCORN registry

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have significantly changed endovascular therapy (EVT) for femoropopliteal artery (FPA) disease, in terms of the expansion of indications for EVT for symptomatic lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD). However, whether there is a difference in the performance among individual DCBs has not yet been fully discussed. The present sub-analysis of real-world data from a prospective trial of first-generation DCBs compared the clinical outcomes between high- and low-dose DCBs using propensity score matching methods. The primary endpoint was the restenosis-free and revascularization-free rates at 1 year.

RESULTS

We compared 592 pairs matched for patient and lesion characteristics using propensity score matching among a total of 2,507 cases with first-generation DCBs (592 and 1,808 cases in the Lutonix low-dose and In.PACT Admiral high-dose DCB groups, respectively). There were no differences in patient/lesion characteristics, procedural success rates, or complications between the two groups. First-generation low-dose DCB had significantly lower patency (73.3% [95% confidence interval, 69.6%-77.3%] in the low-dose DCB group versus 86.2% [84.1%-88.3%] in the high-dose DCB group; P < 0.001) and revascularization-free (84.9% [81.9%-88.1%] versus 92.5% [90.8%-94.1%]; P < 0.001) rates. Chronic kidney disease on dialysis, cilostazol use, anticoagulant use, and severe calcification had a significant interaction effect in the association (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

EVT to FPA with first-generation DCBs had inferior low-dose patency outcomes as compared with high-dose outcomes in the present cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Sub analysis of a prospective multicenter study.

Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, the main treatment for lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) is revascularization, including endovascular revascularization (EVR) and open surgical revascularization (OSR), but the specific revascularization strategy for LEAD is controversial. This review provided the comprehensive and recent evidence for the treatment of LEAD.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the short-term or long-term outcomes between EVR and OSR of LEAD were identified. Short-term outcomes were 30-day mortality, major amputation, wound complication, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and length of hospital stay (LOS), while long-term outcomes included overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), freedom from re-intervention (FFR), primary patency (PP), and secondary patency (SP).

RESULTS

11 RCTs and 105 cohorts involving 750,134 patients were included in this analysis. For the pooled results of cohort studies, EVR markedly decreased the risk of 30-day mortality, wound complication, MACEs, LOS, but increased the risk of OS, FFR, PP, and SP. For the pooled outcomes of RCTs, EVR was associated with obviously lower 30-day mortality, less wound complication and shorter LOS, but higher risk of PP, and SP. However, both RCTs and cohorts did not show obvious difference in 30-day major amputation and AFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the pooled results of cohorts and RCTs indicated that EVR was associated with a lower short-term risk for LEAD, while OSR was accompanied by a substantially lower long-term risk. Therefore, the life expectancy of LEAD should be strictly considered when choosing the revascularization modality. As the current findings mainly based on data of retrospective cohort studies, additional high-quality studies are essential to substantiate these results.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42022317239.

Long-Term Outcome of Bypass Surgery versus Endovascular Revascularization in Long Femoropopliteal Lesions

Long-term follow-up data comparing surgical and endovascular revascularization of femoropopliteal lesions is rarely reported. This study presents 4-year results of revascularization for long femoropopliteal lesions (Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus Types C and D) with vein bypass (VBP), polytetrafluorethylene bypass (PTFE), and endovascular intervention with a nitinol stent (NS). Data from a randomized-controlled trial on VBP and NS was compared with a retrospective patient cohort using PTFE with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary, primary assisted, and secondary patency, as well as changes in Rutherford categories and limb salvage rates, are reported. Between 2016 and 2020, 332 femoropopliteal lesions underwent revascularization. The lesion lengths and basic patient characteristics were similar between the groups. 49% of the patients presented with chronic limb threatening ischemia at the time of revascularization. During the four-year follow-up, primary patency was comparable for all three groups. Primary assisted and secondary patency were significantly higher after VBP, while PTFE and NS had similar results. Clinical improvement was also significantly superior after VBP. After four years of follow-up, patency rates as well as the clinical outcome clearly favor VBP. If no vein is available, NS is as effective as PTFE bypass with regard to patency and clinical outcome.

Endovascular interventions in outpatient care

Endovascular arterial revascularisations for the treatment of symptomatic peripheral arterial disease are constantly increasing in importance and number due to the changing age structure and high numbers of comorbidities in the German population. Patients with peripheral artery disease are often at increased risk for peri- and post-procedural complications including severe cardiovascular events. Due to limited financial and human resources and considerable risks of hospitalization, endovascular interventions that were previously reserved for hospitalized patients are now progressively considered to be performed as day case procedures. More than one third of these procedures are performed in Germany by internists with a specialization in angiology. In the current position paper the German Society of Angiology endorsed by the European Society of Vascular Medicine, summarizes the requirements and risk factors to be considered for the planning, safe performance and post procedural care of endovascular revascularizations in outpatients. The performance of endovascular procedures for peripheral artery disease both in hospitalised and outpatients should be accompanied by a mandatory quality assurance process that should not only capture procedural data, but also require documentation of complications and longterm outcome.