Balloon Angioplasty Versus Bailout Stenting for Isolated Chronic Total Occlusions in the Popliteal Artery

Abstract

Aims:

Stenting of the popliteal artery (PA) is generally considered inappropriate due to the high mechanical stress and bending of the artery during knee flexion. Nevertheless, vessel recoil remains problematic following angioplasty procedure for chronic total occlusions (CTOs) and adjunctive stenting may be required. The purpose of this study is to compare balloon angioplasty alone versus bailout stenting for isolated CTO of the PA.

Materials and Methods:

Between March 2012 and October 2016, 43 patients were treated with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with balloon alone (PTA, n = 16) or bailout stenting percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS, n = 27) for de novo CTO of PA. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups with regard to patient demographics and lesions characteristics (calcification severity and lesion length). The median lesion lengths were 67 mm (39.5-78.5) in the PTA group and 94 mm (50-114) in the PTAS group (p = 0.14). The primary outcome measure was primary patency; secondary outcomes were technical success, primary assisted patency, major amputation, and increased Rutherford classification.

Results:

Technical success rate was 37% and 96.3% in the PTA and PTAS groups, respectively. There was no statistical difference in 12-month primary patency rate (65.8% versus 58.7%; p = 0.15) and primary assisted patency at 12 months (75.2 versus 69.2; p = 0.47) between the 2 groups. Freedom from target lesion revascularization at 12 months was not significantly different, with 85.7% and 81.6% (p = 0.2) in the PTA and PTAS groups, respectively. One amputation occurred in the PTA group.

Conclusion:

This small cohort suggests that stenting as a bailout procedure in CTO of the PA provides similar results to successful balloon angioplasty. Stenting should only be performed after suboptimal balloon angioplasty with vessel recoil. Due to the large lost to follow-up, strong evidence of a therapy over the other cannot be formulated. Larger studies with longer and stronger follow-up are needed to confirm those results.