RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Strategies for the most effective treatment for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remain controversial among clinicians. Several trials have shown improved primary patency of femoropopliteal interventions with the utilization of paclitaxel-coated balloons or stents compared to conventional balloons or stents. However, a 2018 meta-analysis suggested an increased mortality risk for patients receiving drug-coated balloons or stents (DCBS), resulting in an international pause in the use of DCBS. A 2021 meta-analysis by the same group suggested an increased risk of major amputation following DCBS use in peripheral arterial revascularization procedures. Here we report our long-term institutional outcomes comparing uncoated devices to DCBS. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent peripheral arterial angioplasty, stenting, atherectomy, or a combination between 2011 and 2020 within a regional healthcare system was performed. Univariate, multivariate, and survival analyses were performed using standard statistical methods to assess the primary end points of overall survival, 5-year survival, and amputation-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 2,717 patients were identified, of whom 1,965 were treated with conventional uncoated devices and 752 were treated with DCBS. A univariate analysis showed that patients treated with non-DCBS had higher rates of overall mortality, major amputations, and mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years. A multivariable analysis demonstrated that the use of conventional devices, age, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack, warfarin use, and atrial fibrillation all significantly increased the risk of 5-year mortality, overall mortality, and combined mortality and/or amputation. CONCLUSIONS: DCBS are not associated with increased mortality or worse amputation-free survival in this real-world cohort of patients treated for PAD. Our data suggest that mortality is more closely linked with pre-existing patient comorbidities rather than device selection at the time of revascularization.