Outcomes and Comparative Analysis of the Initial Results of Standard Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Coated Balloons Alone Versus in Association With Laser-Excimer Atherectomy in the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Artery In-Stent Restenosis (INTACT).
drug-coated balloon
excimer laser atherectomy
femoropopliteal artery
in-stent restenosis
percutaneous transluminal angioplasty
peripheral artery disease
Journal
Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists
ISSN: 1545-1550
Titre abrégé: J Endovasc Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100896915
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Apr 2024
24 Apr 2024
Historique:
medline:
25
4
2024
pubmed:
25
4
2024
entrez:
25
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Despite improved patency with newer-generation nitinol stents, one-half of patients will require secondary interventions for in-stent restenosis (ISR). The best treatment strategy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare drug-coated balloons (DCBs) used alone or in association with excimer laser atherectomy (ELA) to simple percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) in the treatment of femoropopliteal-ISR. The INTACT trial is a multicenter, prospective, triple-arm randomized trial conducted across 14 centers from December 2015 to November 2019. Patients Rutherford Class 2-5 with ISR≥70% were followed-up for 18 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was recurrent ISR>70% by duplex ultrasound analysis. The primary safety endpoint was major adverse events (MAEs) defined as death, major amputation, or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Around 134 subjects were randomized to PTA alone (n=41), PTA+DCB (n=43) or PTA+ELA+DCB (n=50). Procedural success was similar (p=.74), as was clinical success (p=.17). The number of recurrent ISR>70% decreased after PTA+ELA+DCB (30.0%; p=.04) and PTA+DCB (30.2%; p=.05) compared to PTA alone (51.2%). Primary patency was higher after PTA+ELA+DCB (log-rank p=.04) and PTA+DCB (log-rank p=.02) compared to PTA alone at 12 months (78.7% and 70.4% vs 61.5%) and 18 months (61.6% and 67.7% vs 37.3%). Freedom from MAEs was lower after PTA+DCB (27.9%) compared to PTA alone (53.7%; p=.02) but did not differ with PTA+ELA+DCB (40.0%). It was primarily driven by TLR; 2 major amputations occurred after PTA+ELA+DCB (4.0%; p=.18). This independent study demonstrated a decrease in recurrent ISR>70% and increase in primary patency up to 18 months after PTA+ELA+DCB and PTA+DCB compared to PTA alone in the treatment of FP-ISR. It did not show an increase in MAEs but could have lacked power. This multicenter, prospective, triple-arm randomized, controlled trial focuses on the results of adjunctive therapies, such as excimer laser atherectomy (ELA) and/or drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in femoropopliteal lesions in 134 patients. It has the originality of being an independent study funded by a grant from the French Ministry of Health. This study confirms a significant decrease in recurrent ISR >70% and increase in primary patency up to 18 months after the use of ELA+DCB and DCBs compared to simple percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in the treatment of femoropopliteal ISR without an increase in major adverse events.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
UNASSIGNED
Despite improved patency with newer-generation nitinol stents, one-half of patients will require secondary interventions for in-stent restenosis (ISR). The best treatment strategy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare drug-coated balloons (DCBs) used alone or in association with excimer laser atherectomy (ELA) to simple percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) in the treatment of femoropopliteal-ISR.
METHODS
UNASSIGNED
The INTACT trial is a multicenter, prospective, triple-arm randomized trial conducted across 14 centers from December 2015 to November 2019. Patients Rutherford Class 2-5 with ISR≥70% were followed-up for 18 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was recurrent ISR>70% by duplex ultrasound analysis. The primary safety endpoint was major adverse events (MAEs) defined as death, major amputation, or target lesion revascularization (TLR).
RESULTS
UNASSIGNED
Around 134 subjects were randomized to PTA alone (n=41), PTA+DCB (n=43) or PTA+ELA+DCB (n=50). Procedural success was similar (p=.74), as was clinical success (p=.17). The number of recurrent ISR>70% decreased after PTA+ELA+DCB (30.0%; p=.04) and PTA+DCB (30.2%; p=.05) compared to PTA alone (51.2%). Primary patency was higher after PTA+ELA+DCB (log-rank p=.04) and PTA+DCB (log-rank p=.02) compared to PTA alone at 12 months (78.7% and 70.4% vs 61.5%) and 18 months (61.6% and 67.7% vs 37.3%). Freedom from MAEs was lower after PTA+DCB (27.9%) compared to PTA alone (53.7%; p=.02) but did not differ with PTA+ELA+DCB (40.0%). It was primarily driven by TLR; 2 major amputations occurred after PTA+ELA+DCB (4.0%; p=.18).
CONCLUSION
UNASSIGNED
This independent study demonstrated a decrease in recurrent ISR>70% and increase in primary patency up to 18 months after PTA+ELA+DCB and PTA+DCB compared to PTA alone in the treatment of FP-ISR. It did not show an increase in MAEs but could have lacked power.
CLINICAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS
This multicenter, prospective, triple-arm randomized, controlled trial focuses on the results of adjunctive therapies, such as excimer laser atherectomy (ELA) and/or drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in femoropopliteal lesions in 134 patients. It has the originality of being an independent study funded by a grant from the French Ministry of Health. This study confirms a significant decrease in recurrent ISR >70% and increase in primary patency up to 18 months after the use of ELA+DCB and DCBs compared to simple percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in the treatment of femoropopliteal ISR without an increase in major adverse events.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38659343
doi: 10.1177/15266028241248333
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15266028241248333Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.