PTFE bypass or thrupass for superficial femoral artery occlusion? A randomised controlled trial

Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Bypass and Endovascular Revascularisation for Peripheral Artery Disease

OBJECTIVE

Peripheral artery disease affects approximately 250 million people globally. Multiple randomised controlled trials have compared bypass and endovascular interventions but the optimum revascularisation approach remains unclear. The recently published BEST-CLI and BASIL-2 trials provide current and robust data addressing this question, however their findings are not concordant. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an overview of the worldwide randomised evidence comparing bypass surgery and endovascular revascularisation in lower limb peripheral artery disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases was performed of all time periods up to 7 May 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials comparing bypass and endovascular revascularisation for treating lower limb peripheral artery disease. The primary outcome was major amputation. Secondary outcomes were mortality, re-intervention, 30-day adverse events and 30-day mortality. Odds ratios were calculated and pooled using the random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.

RESULTS

Fourteen cohorts were identified across thirteen studies, enrolling 3840 patients. There was no significant difference in major amputation (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.80-1.57) or mortality (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.79-1.17) between the bypass and endovascular groups. Bypass was associated with a significant reduction in re-intervention compared with endovascular treatment (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that rates of major amputation and mortality are similar following bypass and endovascular interventions. Patients who undergo bypass surgery have a significantly lower re-intervention rate post-operatively.

Comparison of Bypass Surgery versus Endovascular Interventions for Peripheral Artery Disease through Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of bypass surgery with those of endovascular interventions for the treatment of peripheral artery disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until July 2023 for RCTs comparing bypass surgery and endovascular interventions in patients with intermittent claudication or critical limb-threatening ischemia. Primary outcomes included technical success, 30-day morbidity and mortality, 1-year primary patency, and major amputation at 1 year. A random-effects model was employed for pooling odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were used to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs involving 3,856 patients were included. Bypass surgery achieved significantly higher technical success (OR, 8.50; 95% CI, 5.46-13.25) and 1-year primary patency (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.99), However, it was associated with increased 30-day morbidity (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.86), 30-day mortality (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.10-3.18), and 1-year major amputation rates (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.13-5.88) compared with endovascular interventions. Differences in 1-year amputation-free survival, primary assisted and secondary patency at 1 year, reintervention rates within 1 year, 30-day major adverse cardiac events, postprocedural change in the ankle-brachial index, and changes in health-related quality of life at 1 year, 1-year clinical improvement, and 1-year all-cause mortality were statistically nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Bypass surgery resulted in higher technical success and 1-year primary patency; however, endovascular interventions resulted in lower initial morbidity and mortality and major amputations.

Bypass surgery versus endovascular revascularization for occlusive infrainguinal peripheral artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the development of the Italian Guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot syndrome

To report a review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bypass surgery (BS) and endovascular treatment (ET) in infrainguinal peripheral arterial disease (PAD) for several endpoints, such as major and minor amputation, major adverse limb events (MALEs), ulcer healing, time to healing, and all-cause mortality to support the development of the Italian Guidelines for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Syndrome (DFS). A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed to identify RCTs, published since 1991 up to June 21, 2023, enrolling patients with lower limb ischemia due to atherosclerotic disease (Rutherford I-VI). Any surgical BS or ET was allowed, irrespective of the approach, route, or graft employed, from iliac to below-the-knee district. Primary endpoint was major amputation rate. Secondary endpoints were amputation-free survival major adverse limb events (MALEs), minor amputation rate, all-cause mortality, ulcer healing rate, time to healing, pain, transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2) or ankle-brachial index (ABI), quality of life, need for a new procedure, periprocedural serious adverse events (SAE; within 30 days from the procedure), hospital lenght of stay, and operative time. Twelve RCTs were included, one enrolled two separate cohorts of patients, and therefore, the studies included in the analyses were 13. Participants treated with ET had a similar rate of major amputations to participants treated with BS (MH-OR 0.85 [0.60, 1.20], p = 0.36); only one trial reported separately data on patients with diabetes (N = 1), showing no significant difference between ET and BS (MH-OR: 0.67 [0.09, 5.13], p = 0.70). For minor amputation, no between-group significant differences were reported: MH-OR for ET vs BS: 0.83 [0.21, 3.30], p = 0.80). No significant difference in amputation-free survival between the two treatment modalities was identified (MH-OR 0.94 [0.59, 1.49], p = 0.80); only one study reported subgroup analyses on diabetes, with a non-statistical trend toward reduction in favor of ET (MH-OR 0.62 [0.37, 1.04], p = 0.07). No significant difference between treatments was found for all-cause mortality (MH-OR for ET vs BS: 0.98 [0.80, 1.21], p = 0.88). A significantly higher rate of MALE was reported in participants treated with ET (MH-OR: 1.44 [1.05, 1.98], p = 0.03); in diabetes subgroup analysis showed no differences between-group for this outcome (MH-OR: 1.34 [0.76, 2.37], p = 0.30). Operative duration and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter for ET (WMD: - 101.53 [- 127.71, - 75.35] min, p < 0.001, and, - 4.15 [- 5.73, - 2.57] days, p < 0.001 =, respectively). ET was associated with a significantly lower risk of any SAE within 30 days in comparison with BS (MH-OR: 0.60 [0.42, 0.86], p = 0.006). ET was associated with a significantly higher risk of reintervention (MH-OR: 1.57 [1.10, 2.24], p = 0.01). No significant between-group differences were reported for ulcer healing (MH-OR: 1.19 [0.53, 2.69], p = 0.67), although time to healing was shorter (- 1.00 [0.18, 1.82] months, p = 0.02) with BS. No differences were found in terms of quality of life and pain. ABI at the end of the study was reported by 7 studies showing a significant superiority of BS in comparison with ET (WMD: 0.09[0.02; 0.15] points, p = 0.01). The results of this meta-analysis showed no clear superiority of either ET or BS for the treatment of infrainguinal PAD also in diabetic patients. Further high-quality studies are needed, focusing on clinical outcomes, including pre-planned subgroup analyses on specific categories of patients, such as those with diabetes and detailing multidisciplinary team approach and structured follow-up.

Revascularization Strategies for Patients With Femoropopliteal Peripheral Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

No adequately powered studies exist to compare major clinical outcomes after endovascular therapy (EVT) with stent implantation vs bypass surgery (BSx) for symptomatic femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to perform a pooled analysis of individual patient data from all randomized controlled trials comparing EVT vs BSx.

METHODS

Principal investigators of 5 of 6 available randomized controlled trials agreed to pool individual patient data. The primary endpoint was major adverse limb events, a composite of all-cause death, major amputation, or target limb reintervention. Secondary endpoints included amputation-free survival, individual major adverse limb event components, and primary patency. Early complications were bleeding, infection, or all-cause death within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 639 patients were analyzed with a mean age of 68.1 ± 9.1 years and 29.0% women. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. At 2 years, there were no significant differences between patients who received EVT and those who received BSx regarding major adverse limb events (40.1% vs 36.4%; log-rank P = 0.447; adjusted HR [aHR]: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.80-1.36), amputation-free survival (88.1% vs 90.0%; log-rank P = 0.455; aHR for death or amputation: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.63-1.71) and the other secondary endpoints except for primary patency, which was lower in patients who received EVT vs those who received BSx (51.2% vs 61.3%; log-rank P = 0.024; aHR for loss of primary patency: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.02-1.69). EVT was associated with significantly lower rates of early complications (6.8% vs 22.6%; P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.1 ± 4.2 days vs 7.4 ± 4.9 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings further support the efficacy and safety of EVT as an alternative to BSx in patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease.

FEMOROPOPLITEAL ANGIOPLASTY VS OPEN SURGERY FOR CHRONIC LIMB-THREATENING ISCHEMIA

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To compare the results of femoro-popliteal PTA vs open surgery in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and analyze clinical efficacy long-term results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: Between 2018 - 2019, 145 patients with CLTI who underwent femoro-popliteal arterial segment steno-occlusive lesions (SOL) unilateral revascu¬larization. Open surgery were performed for - 48 (33, 1℅), percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for - 73 (50.3%), and were treated with hybrid surgical interventions for - 24 (16.6%).

RESULTS

Results: During the analysis, no statistically significant difference was found among the three groups patients indicators. According to the diabetes patients indicator, the differences among the groups are statistically significant (p<0.001), diabetes was present in only 16.7% of open surgical intervention group patients, 45.8% of PTA group patients, 54.8% of the hybrid surgery group patients. In the overall comparison 2-year limb preservation after open surgery 93.8%, after PTA 91.7%, and after hybrid surgery 91.6%; amputations: open surgery - 6.2% PTA- 8.2 %, hybrid surgery -8.3%; exemption from surgical re-intervention: open surgery - 68.7%, PTA- 58.9%, hybrid surgery - 75%. There were no differences in limb preservation and amputation between open surgery, hybrid intervention, and PTA. A difference was found only in reintervention tactic among the open surgery and PTA groups as opposed to the hybrid surgery.

CONCLUSION

Сonclusions: Limb salvage and CLTI patients survival after open surgery and PTA who were not performed major amputation in 2 years term after revascularization were comparable regardless of treatment method.

Mortality in patients undergoing revascularization with paclitaxel eluting devices for infrainguinal peripheral artery disease: Insights from a network meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate whether paclitaxel eluting devices increased the risk of death in patients undergoing revascularization for infrainguinal peripheral artery disease using network meta-analyses.

METHODS

PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through April 2020 for randomized trials in patients with infrainguinal peripheral artery disease who underwent revascularization with or without a paclitaxel eluting device (balloon/stent). Short-term mortality defined as death at 6-12 months, and long-term mortality defined as death at >12 months after revascularization.

RESULTS

Our search identified 57 eligible randomized controlled studies enrolling a total of 9,362 patients comparing seven revascularization strategies (balloon angioplasty vs. bare metal stent vs. covered stent vs. paclitaxel eluting stent vs. other drug eluting stent vs. paclitaxel-coated balloon vs. bypass surgery). Overall, paclitaxel eluting stent and paclitaxel-coated balloons did not increase short-term mortality (eg, vs. balloon angioplasty: paclitaxel-coated balloon OR [95% CI] 1.21 [0.88-1.66], p = .24; paclitaxel eluting stent OR [95%CI] 1.01 [0.63-1.63], p = .97, respectively). In addition, paclitaxel eluting stent did not show significant increase in long-term mortality (eg, vs. balloon angioplasty: OR [95%CI] 1.06 [0.70-1.59], p = .79). However, paclitaxel-coated balloon showed significant increase in long-term mortality compared to balloon angioplasty and bypass (vs. balloon angioplasty: OR [95% CI] 1.48 [1.06-2.07], p = .021; vs. bypass: OR [95%CI] 1.73 [1.05-2.84], p = .031, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis of randomized trials, there was no significant increase in mortality with paclitaxel eluting stent, but there was increased risk of long-term mortality in paclitaxel-coated balloon for the treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery disease.

Drug-Eluting Stent Shows Similar Patency Results as Prosthetic Bypass in Patients with Femoropopliteal Occlusion in a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Claudication and critical limb threatening ischemia are significant causes of mortality in the elderly. The gold standard of superficial femoral artery (SFA) revascularization is thus far considered to be the femoropopliteal bypass. The aim of this study was to compare mid-term patency between drug-eluting stents (DESs) and prosthetic bypass grafts (BSX). Studies have reported comparable results for both the methods.

METHODS

Forty-six patients with claudication or rest pain due to a 5-25 cm SFA occlusion were randomized between DES and BSX groups. The follow-up period was 24 months, and the primary outcome measure was overall patency. Secondary outcome measures were primary and primary assisted patency, change in ankle-brachial index (ABI), and amputation-free survival.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were eventually analyzed. Six-month secondary patency was 91% (DES) versus 83% (BSX) (P = 0.450). The corresponding numbers at 12 months in the DES and BSX groups were 74% and 80% (P = 0.750), respectively. At 24 months, the respective numbers were 56% and 71% (P = 0.830). There were no statistically significant differences in primary or assisted primary patency at 1, 6, or 12 months.

CONCLUSION

There were no demonstrable differences in patency rates or clinical outcomes such as ABI or major amputations between DES and BSX. Although underpowered, the results suggest noninferiority of the DES compared with prosthetic bypass surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was preregistered at ClinicalTrials.org (NCT01450722).

When Are Endovascular and Open Bypass Treatments Preferred for Femoropopliteal Occlusive Disease?

Several meta-analyses and multicenter trials have shown that chronic limb ischemia did not occur for up to 5 years in 50%–70% of patients who underwent saphenous vein grafts, with limb salvage and perioperative mortality rates of >80% and 3%, respectively. However, open surgical bypass can have limitations, including postoperative morbidity/wound complications of 10%–20% and prolonged length of hospital stay and outpatient care. Several studies have analyzed clinical outcomes for patients with critical limb ischemia treated with endovascular therapies, but they have been mainly retrospective with significant heterogeneity or were single center. Only few randomized trials have compared surgical vs. endovascular therapy. These included the Bypass vs. Angioplasty in Severe Ischemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial, with no differences found in amputation-free or overall survival rates at 1 year; however, late outcomes favored the surgical group. The Bypass or Angioplasty in Severe Intermittent Claudication (BASIC) trial concluded that the 1-year patency rates were 82% and 43% for bypass and angioplasty, respectively. The BEST Endovascular vs. Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) trial is currently enrolling patients. This review analyzed studies comparing open vs. endovascular therapy in patients with femoropopliteal disease. (This is a review article based on the invited lecture of the 45th Annual Meeting of Japanese Society for Vascular Surgery.)

Bypass surgery for chronic lower limb ischaemia

BACKGROUND

Bypass surgery is one of the mainstay treatments for patients with critical lower limb ischaemia (CLI). This is the second update of the review first published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bypass surgery in patients with chronic lower limb ischaemia.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Group searched its trials register (last searched October 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 9, 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of bypass surgery versus control or any other treatment. The primary outcome parameters were defined as early postoperative non-thrombotic complications, procedural mortality, clinical improvement, amputation, primary patency, and mortality within follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the update, two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. We analysed data using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We applied fixed-effect or random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We selected 11 trials reporting a total of 1486 participants. Six trials compared bypass surgery with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), and one each with remote endarterectomy, thromboendarterectomy, thrombolysis, exercise, and spinal cord stimulation. The quality of the evidence for the most important outcomes of bypass surgery versus PTA was high except for clinical improvement and primary patency. We judged the quality of evidence for clinical improvement to be low, due to heterogeneity between the studies and the fact that this was a subjective outcome assessment and, therefore, at risk of detection bias. We judged the quality of evidence for primary patency to be moderate due heterogeneity between the studies. For the remaining comparisons, the evidence was limited. For several outcomes, the CIs were wide.Comparing bypass surgery with PTA revealed a possible increase in early postinterventional non-thrombotic complications (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.73; six studies; 1015 participants) with bypass surgery, but bypass surgery was associated with higher technical success rates (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.44; five studies; 913 participants). Analyses by different clinical severity of disease (intermittent claudication (IC) or CLI) revealed that peri-interventional complications occurred more frequently in participants with CLI undergoing bypass surgery than PTA (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.24). No differences in periprocedural mortality were identified (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.19; five studies; 913 participants). The primary patency rate at one year was higher after bypass surgery than after PTA (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.14; four studies; 300 participants), but this difference was not shown at four years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78; two studies; 363 participants). No differences in clinical improvement (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.03 to 14.52; two studies; 154 participants), amputation rates (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.87; five studies; 752 participants), reintervention rates (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.37; three studies; 256 participants), or mortality within the follow-up period (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.25; five studies; 961 participants) between surgical and endovascular treatment were identified. No differences in subjective outcome parameters, indicated by quality of life and physical and psychosocial well-being, were reported. The hospital stay for the index procedure was reported to be longer in participants undergoing bypass surgery than in those treated with PTA.In the single study (116 participants) comparing bypass surgery with remote endarterectomy of the superficial femoral artery, the frequency of early postinterventional non-thrombotic complications was similar in the treatment groups (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.34). No mortality within 30 days of the index treatment or during stay in hospital in either group was recorded. No differences were identified in patency (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.46), amputation (OR 1.70, 95% CI 0.27 to 10.58), and mortality rates within the follow-up period (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.48). Information regarding clinical improvement was unavailable.No differences in major complications (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31) or mortality (OR 2.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 6.44) within 30 days of treatment between surgery and thrombolysis (one study, 237 participants) for chronic lower limb ischaemia were identified. The amputation rate was lower after bypass surgery (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.80). No differences in late mortality were found (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.44). No data regarding patency rates and clinical improvement were reported.Technical success resulting in blood flow restoration was higher after bypass surgery than thromboendarterectomy for aorto-iliac occlusive disease (one study, 43 participants) (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.17). The periprocedural mortality (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65), follow-up mortality (OR 3.29, 95% CI 0.13 to 85.44), and amputation rates (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.91) did not differ between treatments. Clinical improvement and patency rates were not reported.Comparing surgery and exercise (one study, 75 participants) did not identify differences in early postinterventional complications (OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 137.76) and mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.31). The remaining primary outcomes were not reported. There was no difference in maximal walking time between exercise and surgery (1.66 min, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.55).Regarding comparisons of bypass surgery with spinal cord stimulation for CLI, there was no difference in amputation rates after 12 months of follow-up (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 63.95; one study, 12 participants). The remaining primary outcome parameters were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of bypass surgery compared with other treatments; no studies compared bypass to optimal medical treatment. Our analysis has shown that PTA is associated with decreased peri-interventional complications in participants treated for CLI and shorter hospital stay compared with bypass surgery. Surgical treatment seems to confer improved patency rates up to one year. Endovascular treatment may be advisable in patients with significant comorbidity, rendering them high risk surgical candidates. No solid conclusions can be drawn regarding comparisons of bypass surgery with other treatments because of the paucity of available evidence. Further large trials evaluating the impact of anatomical location and extent of disease and clinical severity are required.

An Update on Methods for Revascularization and Expansion of the TASC Lesion Classification to Include Below-the-Knee Arteries: A Supplement to the Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II): The TASC Steering Comittee(.)

The Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) guidelines were last updated in 2007 (TASC II) and represented the collaboration of international vascular specialties involved in the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Since the publication of TASC II, there have been innovations in endovascular revascularization strategies for patients with PAD. The intent of this publication is to provide a complete anatomic lower limb TASC lesion classification, including the infrapopliteal segment, and an updated literature review of new endovascular techniques and practice patterns employed by vascular specialists today.

12-month primary patency rates of contemporary endovascular device therapy for femoro-popliteal occlusive disease in 6,024 patients: beyond balloon angioplasty

BACKGROUND

Endovascular approach to superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease, the most common cause of symptomatic peripheral arterial disease, remains fraught with high failure rates. Newer devices including second-generation nitinol stents, drug-coated stents, drug-coated balloons, covered stents, cryo-therapy, LASER, and directional atherectomy have shown promising results. Clinical equipoise still persists regarding the optimal selection of devices, largely attributable to the different inclusion criteria, study population, length of lesions treated, definition of "patency" and "restenosis," and follow-up methods in the pivotal trials.

METHODS

A prospective protocol was developed. We performed a literature search using PubMed from January 2006 to November 2013. Published articles including endovascular interventions in SFA or popliteal arteries with reported 12-month "primary patency" or "binary restenosis" rates as endpoints were included.

RESULTS

We identified 6,024 patients in 61 trials reporting 12-month primary patency rates in patients with femoropoliteal disease. Primary patency rates were (weighted average) 77.2% for nitinol stents, 68.8% for covered stents, 84% for drug eluting stents, 78.2% for drug eluting/coated balloon, 60.7% for cryoballoon, 51.1% for LASER atherectomy, 63.5% for directional atherectomy and 70.2% with a combination of endovascular devices.

CONCLUSION

The most frequently used endovascular devices yielded various 12-month primary patency rates ranging from 51% to 85%. The increased variation in inclusion criteria, length, and complexity of lesions between studies does not allow direct comparison between them. Larger randomized trials in specific patient populations comparing those modalities is needed before we can make safe recommendation of the superiority of one device over the other.

Results for primary bypass versus primary angioplasty/stent for intermittent claudication due to superficial femoral artery occlusive disease

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty ± stent (PTA/S) and surgical bypass are both accepted treatments for claudication due to superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusive disease. However, long-term results comparing these modalities for primary intervention in patients who have had no prior intervention have not been reported. We report our results with 3-year follow-up.

METHODS

We reviewed all lower extremity bypass procedures at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center from 2001 through 2009 and all PTA/S performed from 2005 through 2009 for claudication. We excluded all limb salvage procedures and included only those that were undergoing their first intervention for claudication due to SFA disease. We recorded patient demographics, comorbidities, perioperative medications, TASC classification, and runoff. Outcomes included complications, restenosis, symptom recurrence, reinterventions, major amputation, and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 113 bypass grafts and 105 PTA/S of femoral-popliteal lesions without prior interventions. Bypasses were above the knee in 62% (45% vein) and below the knee in 38% (100% vein). Mean age was 63 (bypass) versus 69 (PTA/S; P < .01). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 3.9 versus 1.2 days (P < .01). Bypass grafts were used less for TASC A (17% vs 40%; P < .01) and more for TASC C (36% vs 11%; P < .01) and TASC D (13% vs 3%; P < .01) lesions. There were no differences in perioperative (2% vs 0%; not significant [NS]) or 3-year mortality (9% vs 8%; NS). Wound infection was higher with bypass (16% vs 0%; P < .01). None involved grafts. Bypass showed improved freedom from restenosis (73% vs 42% at 3 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], .23-.71), symptom recurrence (70% and 36% at 3 years; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, .2-.56), and freedom from symptoms at last follow-up (83% vs 49%; HR, 0.18; 95% CI, .08-.40). There was no difference in freedom from reintervention (77% vs 66% at 3 years; NS). Multivariable analysis of all patients showed that restenosis was predicted by PTA/S (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4-4.4) and TASC D (HR, 3.7; 95% CI, 3.5-9) lesions. Recurrence of symptoms was similarly predicted by PTA/S (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5) and TASC D lesions (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.4-7). Statin use postoperatively was predictive of patency (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, .35-.97) and freedom from recurrent symptoms (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, .36-.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical bypass for the primary treatment of claudication showed improved freedom from restenosis and symptom relief despite treatment of more extensive disease, but was associated with increased LOS and wound infection. Statins improved freedom from restenosis and symptom recurrence overall.

Impact of the everolimus-eluting stent on stent thrombosis: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the impact of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) on the frequency of stent thrombosis (ST), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiac death in randomized controlled trials comparing the EES to non-everolimus-eluting drug-eluting stents (EE-DES).

BACKGROUND

Whether or not the unique properties of the EES translate into reductions in ST remains unknown.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Internet sources for articles comparing outcomes between EES and non-EE-DES without language or date restriction. Randomized controlled trials reporting the frequency of ST were included. Variables relating to patient and study characteristics and clinical endpoints were extracted.

RESULTS

We identified 13 randomized trials (n = 17,101) with a weighted mean follow-up of 21.7 months. Compared with non-EE-DES, the EES significantly reduced ST (relative risk [RR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.78; p = 0.001), TVR (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.92; p = 0.004), and MI (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.96; p = 0.02). There was no difference in cardiac mortality between the groups (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.16; p = 0.38). The treatment effect was consistent by different follow-up times and duration of clopidogrel use. The treatment effects increased with higher baseline risks of the respective control groups with the strongest correlation observed for ST (R(2) = 0.89, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intracoronary implantation of the EES is associated with highly significant reductions in ST with concordant reductions in TVR and MI compared to non-EE-DES. Whether these effects apply to different patient subgroups and DES types merits further investigation.

SUrgical versus PERcutaneous Bypass: SUPERB-trial; Heparin-bonded endoluminal versus surgical femoro-popliteal bypass: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Endovascular treatment options for the superficial femoral artery are evolving rapidly. For long lesions, the venous femoropopliteal bypass considered to be superior above the prosthetic bypass. An endoluminal bypass, however, may provide equal patency rates compared to the prosthetic above knee bypass. The introduction of heparin-bonded endografts may further improve patency rates. The SUrgical versus PERcutaneous Bypass (SuperB) study is designed to assess whether a heparin-bonded endoluminal bypass provides equal patency rates compared to the venous bypass and to prove that it is associated with improved quality of life, related to a decreased complication rate, or not.

Methods/design

Two-hundred-twenty-two patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease, category 3-6 according to Rutherford, will be randomized in two treatment arms; 1. the surgical femoro-popliteal bypass, venous whenever possible, and 2. the heparin-bonded endoluminal bypass. The power analysis was based on a non-inferiority principle, with an effect size of 90% and 10% margins (alpha 5%, power 80%). Patients will be recruited from 5 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands during a 2-year period. The primary endpoint is primary patency and quality of life evaluated by the RAND-36 questionnaire and the Walking Impairment Questionnaire. Secondary endpoints include secondary patency, freedom-from-TLR and complications.

Discussion

The SuperB trial is a multicentre randomized controlled trial designed to show non-inferiority in patency rates of the heparin-bonded endograft compared to the surgical bypass for treatment of long SFA lesions, and to prove a better quality of life using the heparin bonded-endograft compared to surgically treatment, related to a reduction in complications.