Drug-coated balloon angioplasty for in-stent restenosis of femoropopliteal arteries: a meta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness of endovascular treatment modalities for de novo femoropopliteal lesions at long-term follow-up: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the best endovascular treatment for de novo femoropopliteal lesions at long-term follow-up through network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Medical databases were searched on September 17, 2023. 17 trials and 7 treatments were selected. Outcomes were primary patency, target lesion revascularization (TLR), major amputation and all-cause mortality at 3 and/or 5 years.

RESULTS

Regarding 3-year primary patency, drug-eluting stents (DES) was the best and better than balloon angioplasty (BA; odds ratio [OR], 4.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.68-9.18), bare metal stents (BMS; OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.45-5.46), cryoplasty (OR, 6.75; 95% CI, 2.76-16.50), covered stents (CS; OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.19-8.87) and drug-coated balloons (DCB; OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.63). Regarding 5-year primary patency, DES was the best and better than BMS (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.10-4.99). Regarding 3-year TLR, DES was the best and better than BA (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.44). Regarding 5-year TLR, DES was the best and better than BA (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09-0.42) and balloon angioplasty with brachytherapy (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.74). Regarding 3- and 5-year major amputation, DCB was the best. Regarding 3-year mortality, DES was the best and better than CS (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

DES was the best treatment regarding 3-year primary patency, TLR and mortality, and DCB was the best regarding major amputation. DES was the best treatment regarding 5-year TLR, and DCB was the best regarding primary patency and major amputation. DES and DCB should be given priority in treating femoropopliteal lesions.

Current Management of In-Stent Restenosis

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the primary cause of target lesion failure following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), resulting in 10-year incidences of target lesion revascularization at a rate of approximately 20%. The treatment of ISR is challenging due to its inherent propensity for recurrence and varying susceptibility to available strategies, influenced by a complex interplay between clinical and lesion-specific conditions. Given the multiple mechanisms contributing to the development of ISR, proper identification of the underlying substrate, especially by using intravascular imaging, becomes pivotal as it can indicate distinct therapeutic requirements. Among standalone treatments, drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation have been the most effective. The main advantage of a DCB-based approach is the avoidance of an additional metallic layer, which may otherwise enhance neointimal hyperplasia, provide the substratum for developing neoatherosclerosis, and expose the patient to a persistently higher risk of coronary ischemic events. On the other hand, target vessel scaffolding by DES implantation confers relevant mechanical advantages over DCB angioplasty, generally resulting in larger luminal gain, while drug elution from the stent surface ensures the inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia. Nevertheless, repeat stenting with DES also implies an additional permanent metallic layer that may reiterate and promote the mechanisms leading to ISR. Against this background, the selection of either DCB or DES on a patient- and lesion-specific basis as well as the implementation of adjuvant treatments, including cutting/scoring balloons, intravascular lithotripsy, and rotational atherectomy, hold the potential to improve the effectiveness of ISR treatment over time. In this review, we comprehensively assessed the available evidence from randomized trials to define contemporary interventional treatment of ISR and provide insights for future directions.

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Restenosis After Drug-Coated Balloon Therapy for Femoropopliteal Artery Lesions: A Retrospective Study

Background

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a common atherosclerotic vascular disease. The use of drug-coated balloon (DCB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal artery disease has gradually increased. A certain percentage of patients developed target lesion restenosis after DCB treatment of the femoral popliteal artery. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is closely related to the level of inflammatory activity and has predictive value for atherosclerotic vascular disease. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between NLR and 1-year restenosis after DCB for femoropopliteal artery disease.

Methods

Patients with femoropopliteal artery disease who were treated with DCBs at our hospital from May 2016 to December 2020 were retrospectively included. Baseline data during the patient’s first hospital stay and data during follow-up were collected. Demographic data, laboratory test results, lesion examination results, and major adverse events during the follow-up period were collected. Logistic regression was used to analyze the factors associated with restenosis after DCB.

Results

A total of 117 patients were included. During 1-year follow-up, 19 cases (16.2%) of restenosis were detected. Five of these patients (4.3% of total included patients) were readmitted for symptomatic ischemia. No deaths or amputations occurred. Baseline NLR in patients with restenosis was higher than that in patients without restenosis (2.4 (2.1, 3.4) vs. 1.8 (1.3, 2.3), P < 0.001). Logistic univariate and multivariate analysis showed that baseline hs-CRP level (OR = 1.10, 95%CI: 1.05–1.34), lesion length (OR = 1.04, 95%CI: 1.02–1.27), use of rivaroxaban (OR = 1.08, 95%CI: 1.05–1.39), NLR (OR = 1.47, 95%CI: 1.13–2.48), LDL-C level (OR = 1.25, 95%CI: 1.05–1.52), and diabetes (OR = 1.25, 95%CI: 1.05–1.52) = 1.18, 95%CI: 1.06–1.66) were predictors of restenosis.

Conclusion

Baseline NLR before DCB can predict the risk of restenosis after surgery.

Hybrid surgery techniques for the treatment of in-stent restenosis after 5 years of femoral artery self-expanding bare-metal stent implantation: A case report

RATIONALE

Lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans (ASO) disease is caused by the formation of atherosclerotic plaque in the femoral artery, which causes the stenosis and occlusion of lower legs, and then leads to chronic limb ischemia. Stent intervention is the most common treatment for ASO in the lower extremities, although there is a risk of overstretching or fracturing the stent, resulting in stent rupture. We provide a unique method for treating stent rupture.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 79-year-old male presented with intermittent claudication of the left lower limb for 6 months. Five years ago, a stent was placed in the lower extremity femoral artery. According to the examination, the stent suffered a modest torsional fracture.

DIAGNOSIS

The case was diagnosed with lower extremity ASO.

INTERVENTIONS

We performed a combination of femoral endarterectomy and interventional surgery.

OUTCOMES

Blood flow was restored after the hybrid operation has been used to treat arterial stenosis in the lower limbs.

CONCLUSION

Integrating vascular interventional surgeries can shorten surgical procedures time and increase success rates.

Diabetes and restenosis

Restenosis, defined as the re-narrowing of an arterial lumen after revascularization, represents an increasingly important issue in clinical practice. Indeed, as the number of stent placements has risen to an estimate that exceeds 3 million annually worldwide, revascularization procedures have become much more common. Several investigators have demonstrated that vessels in patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased risk restenosis. Here we present a systematic overview of the effects of diabetes on in-stent restenosis. Current classification and updated epidemiology of restenosis are discussed, alongside the main mechanisms underlying the pathophysiology of this event. Then, we summarize the clinical presentation of restenosis, emphasizing the importance of glycemic control in diabetic patients. Indeed, in diabetic patients who underwent revascularization procedures a proper glycemic control remains imperative.

Feasibility and Safety of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Intracranial Symptomatic In-Stent Restenosis

Objective: Symptomatic in-stent restenosis (sISR) is the major cause of medium- or long-term cerebral infarctions in patients who underwent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for severe intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for the treatment of intracranial sISR. Methods: We report 11 cases of PCB angioplasty for intracranial sISR. Lesion locations and number were as follows: intracranial internal carotid artery (n = 4), M1 segment of middle cerebral artery (MCA) (n = 1), V4 segment of vertebral artery (n = 6). The technical success rate, periprocedural complications, and short-term outcome were retrospectively analyzed. Results: All procedures were successfully performed without periprocedural complication. Asymptomatic vessel dissection after PCB inflation occurred in one case. Postprocedural diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) showed new asymptomatic ipsilateral infarction in one case. All 11 cases did not experience ipsilateral stroke or death within 30 days or ischemic stroke in the territory of the target artery between 31 and 90 days after procedure. Conclusion: This preliminary study indicates that PCB angioplasty is feasible and safe for the treatment of intracranial sISR. Further studies are needed to clarify its efficiency and long-term outcome.

Drug-coated balloons: Technical and clinical progress

The advancement of drug-coated balloons (DCB) presents an alternative nonstent method in the percutaneous treatment of atherosclerotic lesions. While the current generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are the device of choice, especially in coronary artery disease (CAD), DCB has potential applications in the treatment of de novo lesions, in-stent restenosis (ISR), bifurcations, and in peripheral artery disease (PAD). In terms of coronary clinical experience, DCB is used most in ISR scenarios and more data are collected to support the use of DCB in de novo lesions compared to best-in-class DES. The use of DCB in bifurcation side branch treatment has demonstrated safety, and with good angiographic and clinical outcomes, but more data from randomized trials will be required to assess its clinical value. For PAD, the clinical outcomes of DCB with and without debulking devices in diseased femoropopliteal arteries and treatment of below-the-knee (BTK) vessels with DCB are discussed. Current data demonstrated conflicting long-term safety outcomes in the use of paclitaxel devices in the femoral and/or popliteal arteries, while the role of DCB in BTK disease remains uncertain due to a lack of randomized controlled trial data. In summary, this review provides an overall view of current DCB technologies and progress, followed by an update on DCB clinical data in the treatment of CAD and PAD.

Comparison between paclitaxel-coated balloon and standard uncoated balloon in the treatment of femoropopliteal long lesions in diabetics

Atherosclerotic diseases may include femoropopliteal artery stenosis or occlusion. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) is an effective and minimally invasive treatment strategy for atherosclerotic femoropopliteal artery stenosis/occlusion disease. Balloon angioplasty is a widely used technique in the management of occlusive disease in almost all arterial segments.We enrolled 111 diabetics with long femoropopliteal lesions, among which 54 received PTA with paclitaxel-coated balloon (the Paclitaxel group), and 57 with standard balloon catheters (the Control group).The primary outcome was set as angiographic late lumen loss (LLL) within 6 months; the secondary angiographic outcome was binary restenosis. Clinical outcomes included Rutherford clarification, ankle-brachial index (ABI) and rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Two groups had similar basal clinical features, angiographic and procedural characteristics. Compared to controls, the Paclitaxel group had a significantly lower 6-month LLL rate, 12-month binary restenosis rate, 12-month TLR, lower Rutherford grades at 3 and 6 months, and higher ABI at 3 months. For all factors which might influence outcomes, fasting blood glucose was negatively correlated with ABI; the blood urea nitrogen (BUN) was positively related with the Rutherford clarification grades. In addition, the coronary heart disease (CHD) and smoking histories were positively correlated with residual stenosis after treatment.Collectively, the paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty can yield more favorable angiographic and clinical outcomes than standard uncoated balloon angioplasty, even in the more challenging lesions (the long and occlusive femoropopliteal lesions) in diabetics, when it had a similar safety profile to the traditional balloon. Blood glucose, BUN, CHD, and smoking imply poor curative effects.

Drug-eluting balloon angioplasty versus uncoated balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis of the femoropopliteal arteries

BACKGROUND

Stents are placed in the femoropopliteal arteries for numerous reasons, such as atherosclerotic disease, the need for dissection, and perforation of the arteries, and can become stenosed with the passage of time. When a stent develops a flow-limiting stenosis, this process is known as "in-stent stenosis." It is thought that in-stent restenosis is caused by a process known as "intimal hyperplasia" rather than by the progression of atherosclerotic disease. Management of in-stent restenosis may include performing balloon angioplasty, deploying another stent within the stenosed stent to force it open, and creating a bypass to deliver blood around the stent. The role of drug-eluting technologies, such as drug-eluting balloons (DEBs), in the management of in-stent restenosis is unclear. Drug-eluting balloons might function by coating the inside of stenosed stents with cytotoxic chemicals such as paclitaxel and by inhibiting the hyperplastic processes responsible for in-stent restenosis. It is important to perform this systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of DEB because of the potential for increased expenses associated with DEBs over uncoated balloon angioplasty, also known as plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of DEBs compared with uncoated balloon angioplasty in people with in-stent restenosis of the femoropopliteal arteries as assessed by criteria such as amputation-free survival, vessel patency, target lesion revascularization, binary restenosis rate, and death. We define "in-stent restenosis" as 50% or greater narrowing of a previously stented vessel by duplex ultrasound or angiography.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to November 28, 2017. Review authors also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared DEBs versus uncoated balloon angioplasty for treatment of in-stent restenosis in the femoropopliteal arteries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (AK, WA) independently selected appropriate trials and performed data extraction, assessment of trial quality, and data analysis. The senior review author (AD) adjudicated any disagreements.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials that randomized a combined total of 263 participants met the review inclusion criteria. All three trials examined the treatment of symptomatic in-stent restenosis within the femoropopliteal arteries. These trials were carried out in Germany and Austria and used paclitaxel as the agent in the drug-eluting balloons. Two of the three trials were industry sponsored. Two companies manufactured the drug-eluting balloons (Eurocor, Bonn, Germany; Medtronic, Fridley, Minnesota, USA). The trials examined both anatomical and clinical endpoints. We noted heterogeneity in the frequency of bailout stenting deployment between studies as well as in the dosage of paclitaxel applied by the DEBs. Using GRADE assessment criteria, we determined that the certainty of evidence presented was very low for the outcomes of amputation, target lesion revascularization, binary restenosis, death, and improvement of one or more Rutherford categories. Most participants were followed up to 12 months, but one trial followed participants for up to 24 months.Trial results show no difference in the incidence of amputation between DEBs and uncoated balloon angioplasty. DEBs showed better outcomes for up to 24 months for target lesion revascularization (odds ratio (OR) 0.05, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.92 at six months; OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.70 at 24 months) and at six and 12 months for binary restenosis (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56 at six months; OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.76 at 12 months). Participants treated with DEBs also showed improvement of one or more Rutherford categories at six and 12 months (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.21 at six months; OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.83 at 12 months). Data show no clear differences in death between DEBs and uncoated balloon angioplasty. Data were insufficient for subgroup or sensitivity analyses to be conducted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a meta-analysis of three trials with 263 participants, evidence suggests an advantage for DEBs compared with uncoated balloon angioplasty for anatomical endpoints such as target lesion revascularization (TLR) and binary restenosis, and for one clinical endpoint - improvement in Rutherford category post intervention for up to 24 months. However, the certainty of evidence for all these outcomes is very low due to the small number of included studies and participants and the high risk of bias in study design. Adequately powered and carefully constructed randomized controlled trials are needed to adequately investigate the role of drug-eluting technologies in the management of in-stent restenosis.

ISAR-PEBIS (Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Conventional Balloon Angioplasty for In-Stent Restenosis of Superficial Femoral Artery): A Randomized Trial

Background

Paclitaxel‐eluting balloon (PEB) angioplasty has superior efficacy compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) for de novo lesions of superficial femoral artery (SFA). Studies investigating the angiographic and clinical performance of PEB angioplasty versus BA for in‐stent restenosis of SFA are limited. We performed a randomized trial to investigate angiographic and clinical performance of PEB versus BA for in‐stent restenosis of SFA.

Methods and Results

Patients with symptomatic in‐stent restenosis of SFA were randomly assigned to either PEB or BA at 2 centers in Munich, Germany. The primary end point was the percentage diameter stenosis at 6‐ to 8‐month follow‐up angiography. Secondary end points were the rate of binary restenosis at follow‐up angiography and target lesion revascularization, target vessel thrombosis, ipsilateral amputation, bypass surgery of the affected limb, and all‐cause mortality at 24‐month follow‐up. Seventy patients were assigned to PEB (n=36) or BA (n=34). Mean lesion length was 139±67 mm, and roughly one third of lesions were completely occluded at the time of the index procedure. At control angiography, the percentage diameter stenosis (44±33% versus 65±33%, P=0.01) and binary restenosis were significantly reduced with PEB versus BA (30% versus 59%, P=0.03). At 24‐month follow‐up, PEB was associated with a significant reduction of target lesion revascularization in comparison to BA (19% versus 50%, P=0.007). There was no difference with respect to other outcomes of interest.

Conclusions

In patients with in‐stent restenosis of SFA, a percutaneous therapy with PEB compared with BA has superior angiographic performance at 6 to 8 months and improved clinical efficacy up to 24‐month follow‐up.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01083394.