Abstract
Objective
Endovascular treatment (EVT) for an aorto-iliac occlusive lesion is performed worldwide as first-line treatment. However, the choice of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) or double antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after aorto-iliac revascularization is controversial. The purpose of the study was to assess clinical outcomes in patients with SAPT or DAPT after iliac EVT, using propensity score matching.
Method
Patients who underwent EVT for a de-novo iliac occlusive lesion at a single center from 2017 to 2023 were analyzed retrospectively. Comparisons were made between SAPT and DAPT cases after propensity score matching. The primary endpoints of the study were freedom from restenosis and freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR).
Results
A total of 150 patients underwent iliac EVT and received SAPT (n = 93) or DAPT (n = 57). The DAPT group had a significantly higher rate of coronary artery disease (P = .010). After matching, the differences in baseline and procedural details were diminished. The technical success rate of EVT, access site complications, and manual compression time did not differ between the groups. The median follow-up period was 33 (20-47) months. During follow-up, restenosis occurred in 11 cases (7%) and 10 cases (7%) underwent TLR. After matching, the 5-year freedom from restenosis did not differ significantly in the SAPT and DAPT groups (92% vs 90%, P = .80). Freedom from TLR also did not differ between the groups (P = .80). There was a tendency for a lower incident rate of major bleeding in the SAPT group (7% vs 18% at 5 years, P = .10).
Conclusions
Retrospective analysis using propensity score matching showed that SAPT after iliac EVT resulted in similar freedom from restenosis and TLR compared with DAPT.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.