Stenting performs better than drug-coated balloon angioplasty in popliteal lesions.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a common and highly morbid disease. Although there have been recent advancements in the endovascular modalities to treat PAD, comparisons of these strategies, especially in the popliteal region, remain underinvestigated. The objective of this study was to compare midterm outcomes in patients with PAD undergoing treatment with both novel and SS compared with drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty. METHODS: All patients at a multi-institution health system treated for PAD in the popliteal region from 2011 to 2019 were identified. Presenting features, operative details, and outcomes were included in the analysis. Patients who underwent popliteal revascularization with stents were compared with DCB. SS were compared separately with novel dedicated stents. Two-year primary patency was the primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 408 patients (72.7 ± 11.8 years old; 57.1% men) in the analysis. There were 221 (54.7%) patients who underwent popliteal stenting and 187 (45.3%) who underwent popliteal DCB. There were high rates of tissue loss in both groups (57.9% vs 50.8%; P = .14). Stented patients had longer lesions (112.4 ± 3.2 vs 100.2 ± 5.8 mm; P = .03) and higher rates of concomitant superficial femoral artery treatment (88.2% vs 39.6%; P < .01). Chronic total occlusions accounted for the majority of lesions treated (stent 62.4%, DCB 64.2%). Perioperative complications were similar between groups. Primary patency for the stented group was higher at two years than the DCB group (61.0% vs 46.1%; P = .03). When evaluating stented patients only, SS had higher 2-year patency than novel stents in the popliteal segment (69.6% vs 51.4%; P = .04). On multivariable analysis, stenosis, as opposed to chronic total occlusion, was associated with improved patency (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.96; P = .04), whereas novel stents were associated with worse primary patency (hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-3.73; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In a population of patients with severe vascular disease, stents do not have inferior patency and limb salvage rates compared with DCB angioplasty when treating the popliteal region. For patients with advanced vascular disease, and especially tissue loss, stents and DCB are both beneficial when treating popliteal lesions.