Primary results of the SAVAL randomized trial of a paclitaxel-eluting nitinol stent versus percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in infrapopliteal arteries.

BACKGROUND: Effective and durable options for infrapopliteal artery revascularization for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are limited. METHODS: The SAVAL trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of patients with CLTI and infrapopliteal artery lesions with total lesion length ⩽ 140 mm, stenosis ⩾ 70%, and Rutherford category 4-5 assigned 2:1 to treatment with the SAVAL self-expandable paclitaxel drug-eluting stent (DES) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with an uncoated balloon. The primary effectiveness endpoint was primary vessel patency (i.e., core lab-adjudicated duplex ultrasound-based flow at 12 months in the absence of clinically driven target lesion revascularization or surgical bypass of the target lesion). The primary safety endpoint was the 12-month major adverse event (MAE)-free rate; MAEs were defined as a composite of above-ankle index limb amputation, major reintervention, and 30-day mortality. The endpoints were prespecified for superiority (effectiveness) and noninferiority (safety) at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment (N = 130 DES, N = 71 PTA). Target lesion length was 68.1 ± 35.2 mm for the DES group and 68.7 ± 49.2 mm for the PTA group, and 31.0% and 27.6% of patients, respectively, had occlusions. The 12-month primary patency rates were 68.0% for the DES group and 76.0% for the PTA group (Psuperiority = 0.8552). The MAE-free rates were 91.6% and 95.3%, respectively (Pnoninferiority = 0.0433). CONCLUSION: The SAVAL trial did not show benefit related to effectiveness and safety with the nitinol DES compared with PTA in infrapopliteal artery lesions up to 140 mm in length. Continued innovation to provide optimal treatments for CLTI is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03551496).

Evidence-based guidelines for the use of tracheostomy in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based guidelines for tracheostomy in critically ill adult patients and identify areas needing further research. METHODS: A taskforce composed of representatives of 10 member countries of the Pan-American and Iberic Federation of Societies of Critical and Intensive Therapy Medicine and of the Latin American Critical Care Trial Investigators Network developed recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: The group identified 23 relevant questions among 87 issues that were initially identified. In the initial search, 333 relevant publications were identified, of which 226 publications were chosen. The taskforce generated a total of 19 recommendations, 10 positive (1B, 3; 2C, 3; 2D, 4) and 9 negative (1B, 8; 2C, 1). A recommendation was not possible in 6 questions. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous techniques are associated with a lower risk of infections compared with surgical tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy only seems to reduce the duration of ventilator use but not the incidence of pneumonia, the length of stay, or the long-term mortality rate. The evidence does not support the use of routine bronchoscopy guidance or laryngeal masks during the procedure. Finally, proper prior training is as important or even a more significant factor in reducing complications than the technique used.