Paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (PDCB) angioplasty has been shown to be an effective treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) at the femoropopliteal (FP) arteries. Long-term studies, however, have shown a progressive decrease in the patency rates following PDCB. The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of stenosis recurrence after PDCB treatment of FP-ISR, and its immediate and mid-term outcomes.
Methods
This prospective, non-randomized study included all chronic lower extremity ischemia patients of Rutherford class 3–6 who underwent PDCB angioplasty to treat >50% FP-ISR between June 2017 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was primary patency, defined as freedom from binary restenosis and freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included 12-months freedom from CD-TLR and major adverse events (MAEs).
Results
A total of 73 symptomatic chronic limb ischemia patients (73 limbs including 63 with limb threatening ischemia) underwent PDCB angioplasty of FP-ISR lesions (13.7% Tosaka class I, 54.8% class II, and 31.5% class III). The mean ISR lesion length was 121.8 ± 52.7 mm. Technical success was achieved in 70 (95.9%) patients. Kaplan–Meier estimate of the 12-months rates of primary patency and freedom from CD-TLR was 76.1% and 87.4%, respectively. At one year, MAEs occurred in eight patients (11.0%) including two deaths (2.7%), one major amputation (1.4%), and six (8.2%) surgical revascularizations. Multivariable analysis showed that Tosaka class III ISR (HR 4.51, CI: 1.31–15.53, p < 0.001) and reference vessel diameter (HR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.18–080, p = 0.01) were independently associated with recurrent ISR.
Conclusions
PDCB is safe and effective treatment of FP-ISR lesions. Occlusive ISR lesions and reference vessel diameter were independently associated with recurrent ISR stenosis after PDCB treatment.
LairdJRKatzenBTScheinertDRESILIENT Investigators, et al.Nitinol stent implantation versus balloon angioplasty for lesions in the superficial femoral artery and proximal popliteal artery: twelve-month results from the RESILIENT randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2010; 3: 267–276. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.903468.
2.
MehranRDangasGAbizaidAS, et al.Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis: classification and implications for long-term outcome. Circulation1999; 100: 1872–1878. DOI:10.1161/01.cir.100.18.1872.
3.
SchillingerMSabetiSLoeweC, et al.Balloon angioplasty versus implantation of nitinol stents in the superficial femoral artery. N Engl J Med2006; 354: 1879–1888. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa051303.
4.
KrankenbergHSchlüterMSteinkampHJ, et al.Nitinol stent implantation versus percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in superficial femoral artery lesions up to 10 cm in length: the femoral artery stenting trial (FAST). Circulation2007; 116: 285–292. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.689141.
5.
MatsumuraJSYamanouchiDGoldsteinJA, et al.The United States study for evaluating endovascular treatments of lesions in the superficial femoral artery and proximal popliteal by using the protégé everflex nitinol stent system II (DURABILITY II). J Vasc Surg2013; 58: 73–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.12.066.
6.
LiistroFAngioliPPortoI, et al.Paclitaxel-eluting balloon vs. standard angioplasty to reduce recurrent restenosis in diabetic patients with in-stent restenosis of the superficial femoral and proximal popliteal arteries: the DEBATE-ISR study. J Endovasc Ther2014; 21: 1–8. DOI: 10.1583/13-4420R.1.
7.
KrankenbergHTüblerTIngwersenM, et al.Drug-coated balloon versus standard balloon for superficial femoral artery in-stent restenosis: The randomized Femoral Artery In-Stent Restenosis (FAIR) trial. Circulation2015; 132: 2230–2236. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017364.
8.
KinstnerCMLammerJWillfort-EhringerA, et al.Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Standard Balloon Angioplasty in In-Stent Restenosis of the Superficial Femoral and Proximal Popliteal Artery: 1-Year Results of the PACUBA Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2016; 9: 1386–1392. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.04.012.
9.
HorieKTanakaASuzukiK, et al.Long-term clinical effectiveness of a drug-coated balloon for in-stent restenosis in Femoropopliteal lesions. CVIR Endovasc2021; 4: 13. Epub ahead of print 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s42155-021-00205-x.
10.
GrottiSLiistroFAngioliP, et al.Paclitaxel-eluting balloon vs standard angioplasty to reduce restenosis in diabetic patients with in-stent restenosis of the superficial femoral and proximal popliteal arteries: Three-year results of the DEBATE-ISR study. J Endovasc Ther2016; 23: 52–57. DOI: 10.1177/1526602815614555.
11.
RutherfordRBBakerJDErnstC, et al.Recommended standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia: Revised version. J Vasc Surg1997; 26: 517–538. DOI: 10.1016/s0741-5214(97)70045-4.
12.
TosakaASogaYIidaO, et al.Classification and clinical impact of restenosis after femoropopliteal stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol2012; 59: 16–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.09.036.
13.
RankeCCreutzigAAlexanderK, et al.Duplex scanning of the peripheral arteries: correlation of the peak velocity ratio with angiographic diameter reduction. Ultrasound Med Biol1992; 18: 433–440. DOI: 10.1016/0301-5629(92)90082-l.
14.
SacksDMarinelliDLMartinLGSociety of Interventional Radiology Technology Assessment Committee, et al.Reporting standards for clinical evaluation of new peripheral arterial revascularization devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol2003; 14: S395–S404. DOI: 10.1097/01.rvi.0000094613.61428.a9.
15.
HajibandehSHajibandehSAntoniouSA, et al.Covered vs uncovered stents for aortoiliac and femoropopliteal arterial disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther2016; 23: 442–452. DOI: 10.1177/1526602816643834.
16.
GorganiFTelisANarakathuN, et al.Long-term outcomes of the Viabahn stent in the treatment of in-stent restenosis in the superficial femoral artery. J Invasive Cardiol2013; 25: 670–674.
17.
LammerJZellerTHauseggerKA, et al.Heparin-bonded covered stents versus bare-metal stents for complex femoropopliteal artery lesions: The randomized VIASTAR trial (viabahn endoprosthesis with propaten bioactive surface [VIA] versus bare nitinol stent in the treatment of long lesions in superficial femoral artery occlusive disease). J Am Coll Cardiol2013; 62: 1320–1327. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.079.
18.
DippelEJMakamPKovachREXCITE ISR Investigators, et al.Randomized controlled study of excimer laser atherectomy for treatment of femoropopliteal in-stent restenosis: initial results from the EXCITE ISR trial (EXCImer Laser Randomized Controlled Study for Treatment of FemoropopliTEal In-Stent Restenosis). JACC Cardiovasc Interv2015; 8: 92–101.
19.
ShammasNWShammasGABanerjeeS, et al.JetStream rotational and aspiration atherectomy in treating in-stent restenosis of the femoropopliteal arteries: Results of the JETSTREAM-ISR feasibility study. J Endovasc Ther2016; 23: 339–346. DOI: 10.1177/1526602816634028.
20.
TomoiYSogaYIidaO, et al.Impact of drug-eluting stent implantation for femoropopliteal in-stent occlusion. J Endovasc Ther2016; 23: 461–467. DOI: 10.1177/1526602816639721.
21.
MurataNTakaharaMSogaY, et al.Drug-eluting stent vs percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for treatment of femoropopliteal in-stent restenosis: Results from a retrospective 1-year multicenter study. J Endovasc Ther2016; 23: 642–647. DOI: 10.1177/1526602816642195.
22.
OttICasseseSGrohaP, et al.ISAR-PEBIS (Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Conventional Balloon Angioplasty for In-Stent Restenosis of Superficial Femoral Artery): A Randomized Trial. J Am Heart Assoc2017; 6: e006321–e006327. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.006321.
23.
BagueNJuliaPSAuguetA, et al.Femoropopliteal in-stent restenosis repair: midterm outcomes after paclitaxel eluting balloon use (PLAISIR Trial). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2017; 53: 106–113. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.10.002.
24.
StabileEVirgaVSalemmeL, et al.Drug-eluting balloon for treatment of superficial femoral artery in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol2012; 60: 1739–1742. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.033.
25.
VirgaVStabileEBiaminoG, et al.Drug-eluting balloons for the treatment of the superficial femoral artery in-stent restenosis: 2-year follow-up. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2014; 7: 411–415. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.11.020.
26.
SogaYIidaOHiranoK, et al.Mid-term clinical outcome and predictors of vessel patency after femoropopliteal stenting with self-expandable nitinol stent. J Vasc Surg2010; 52: 608–615. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.03.050.
27.
RobinsonWPNguyenLLBaffordR, et al.Results of second-time angioplasty and stenting for femoropopliteal occlusive disease and factors affecting outcomes. J Vasc Surg2011; 53: 651–657. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.09.020.
28.
ArmstrongEJSinghSSinghGD, et al.Angiographic characteristics of femoropopliteal in-stent restenosis: Association with long-term outcomes after endovascular intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2013; 82: 1168–1174. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.24983.
29.
GrayBHBuchanJA. The treatment of superficial femoral artery in-stent restenosis: The jury is still out. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2016; 9: 1393–1396. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.04.029.
30.
GerardiDAlfaniATesorioT, et al.Drug-coated balloon in superficial femoral artery in-stent restenosis. Postep w Kardiol Interwencyjnej2018; 14: 9–14. DOI: 10.5114/aic.2018.74350.
