The Randomized Freeway Stent Study: Drug-Eluting Balloons Outperform Standard Balloon Angioplasty for Postdilatation of Nitinol Stents in the SFA and PI Segment.
Alloys
/ administration & dosage
Angioplasty, Balloon
/ methods
Ankle Brachial Index
Austria
Drug-Eluting Stents
Female
Femoral Artery
/ physiopathology
Follow-Up Studies
Germany
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Plaque, Atherosclerotic
/ therapy
Popliteal Artery
/ physiopathology
Prospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Vascular Patency
Drug-eluting balloon
Nitinol stent
PAD
Paclitaxel
SFA
Journal
Cardiovascular and interventional radiology
ISSN: 1432-086X
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003538
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
20
12
2018
accepted:
06
08
2019
pubmed:
23
8
2019
medline:
21
1
2020
entrez:
22
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The prospective randomized multicenter Freeway study evaluated the possible hemodynamic and clinical benefits of primary stent insertion followed by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with drug-eluting balloons (DEB) over post-stent insertion PTA with standard balloons in the treatment of symptomatic femoropopliteal arteriosclerotic lesions. In total, 204 patients in 13 centers in Germany and Austria were enrolled and randomized to primary stenting followed by either FREEWAY™ drug-eluting balloon or standard PTA balloon angioplasty. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 6 months; the secondary endpoints include TLR rate at 12 months and primary patency, shift in Rutherford classification, ankle-brachial index (ABI) and major adverse events (MAE) at 6 and 12 months. Lesion characteristics and vessel patency were analyzed by an independent and blinded corelab. At 6-month and 12-month follow-up, TLR rate was lower in the DEB arm compared to standard PTA but did not reach statistical significance (4.1% vs. 9.0% p = 0.234 and 7.9% vs. 17.7% p = 0.064, respectively). Primary patency was significantly better for patients treated with the DEB at 6 months (90.3% vs. 69.8% p = 0.001) and 12 months (77.4% vs. 61.0% p = 0.027). Improvement in Rutherford classifications was likewise significantly better for patients in the DEB group at 6 (94.9% vs. 84.3% p = 0.027) and 12 months (95.5% vs. 79.9% p = 0.003). The percentage of patients with an improved ABI of 1.0-1.2 was significantly higher in the DEB group compared to the PTA group at 6 months (55.3% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.015) but without significant difference at 12 months (48.2% vs. 32.9%; p = 0.055). At 6 months, rate of major adverse events (MAE) was 1% in both arms, and at 12 months 2.2% for the DEB and 3.8% for the PTA group. The Freeway Stent Study shows that the usage of DEB as a restenosis prophylaxis seems to be safe and feasible. The 12-month follow-up results give a clear sign in favor of the DEB group.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31432220
doi: 10.1007/s00270-019-02309-3
pii: 10.1007/s00270-019-02309-3
pmc: PMC6775030
doi:
Substances chimiques
Alloys
0
nitinol
2EWL73IJ7F
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1513-1521Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Oct 1;4(5):495-504
pubmed: 21953370
Eur Heart J. 2018 Mar 1;39(9):763-816
pubmed: 28886620
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Jul 11;9(13):1386-92
pubmed: 27388828
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jan;7(1):10-9
pubmed: 24456716
J Endovasc Ther. 2016 Oct;23(5):701-7
pubmed: 27193308
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005 Mar;16(3):331-8
pubmed: 15758128
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Feb;55(2):390-8
pubmed: 22169682
J Endovasc Ther. 2006 Dec;13(6):701-10
pubmed: 17154704
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001 Jan;12(1):23-31
pubmed: 11200349
Circulation. 2007 Jul 17;116(3):285-92
pubmed: 17592075
Vascular. 2018 Feb;26(1):3-11
pubmed: 28436316
N Engl J Med. 2006 May 4;354(18):1879-88
pubmed: 16672699
Circulation. 2008 Sep 23;118(13):1358-65
pubmed: 18779447
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Oct;54(4):1042-50
pubmed: 21636239
Circulation. 2015 Dec 8;132(23):2230-6
pubmed: 26446728
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Dec;6(12):1295-302
pubmed: 24239203
J Endovasc Ther. 2012 Oct;19(5):571-80
pubmed: 23046320
N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 14;358(7):689-99
pubmed: 18272892
Minerva Cardioangiol. 2018 Jun;66(3):233-237
pubmed: 29072065
J Endovasc Ther. 2017 Dec;24(6):783-792
pubmed: 28795638
Rofo. 2004 Sep;176(9):1302-10
pubmed: 15346266
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 9;373(2):145-53
pubmed: 26106946
Circulation. 2015 Feb 3;131(5):495-502
pubmed: 25472980
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Aug;54(2):394-401
pubmed: 21658885
J Endovasc Ther. 2014 Jun;21(3):359-68
pubmed: 24915582
J Endovasc Ther. 2014 Feb;21(1):34-43
pubmed: 24502482
J Endovasc Ther. 2012 Feb;19(1):1-9
pubmed: 22313193
J Endovasc Ther. 2014 Feb;21(1):1-8
pubmed: 24502477
J Endovasc Ther. 2013 Dec;20(6):746-56
pubmed: 24325689
J Endovasc Ther. 2015 Feb;22(1):14-21
pubmed: 25775674