Short-term Results of the RAPID Randomized Trial of the Legflow Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon With Supera Stenting vs Supera Stenting Alone for the Treatment of Intermediate and Long Superficial Femoral Artery Lesions.

PURPOSE: To report a randomized trial comparing the Legflow paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) + Supera stenting to Supera stenting alone in patients with intermediate to long superficial femoral artery (SFA) lesions. METHODS: The multicenter RAPID trial ( controlled-trials.com ; identifier ISRCTN47846578) randomized (1:1) 160 patients (mean age 67 years; 102 men) with Rutherford category 2-6 ischemia to treatment with Legflow PEB + Supera stent or Supera stent alone in intermediate to long SFA lesions (mean lesion length 15.8±7.4 vs 15.8±7.6 cm, respectively). The efficacy outcome was primary patency, defined as freedom from restenosis on duplex ultrasound or angiography. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics including the percentage of occlusions were similar between groups. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated primary patency at 1 year was 68.3% (95% CI 56.7% to 79.9%) in the PEB + Supera group vs 62.0% (95% CI 49.1% to 74.9%) in the Supera group (p=0.900). Per-protocol analysis showed a 12-month primary patency estimate of 74.7% (95% CI 63.1% to 86.3%) in the PEB + Supera group vs 62.0% (95% CI 49.1% to 74.9%) in the control group (p=0.273). Secondary patency estimates at 12 months (per-protocol analysis) were 89.0% (95% CI 80.6% to 97.4%) vs 98.0% (95% CI 94.1% to 100%; p=0.484); the estimates for freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) were 83.0% (95% CI 72.8% to 93.2%) and 77.8% (95% CI 66.6% to 89.0%; p=0.277), respectively. CONCLUSION: The short-term results from the multicenter RAPID randomized controlled trial indicate that the Legflow PEB is safe and feasible for the treatment of intermediate to long SFA lesions. In this trial, at least 70% of the patients suffered an occlusion. The PEB group had higher rates of primary patency and freedom from CD-TLR, although there were no statistically significant differences vs controls.

CIRSE vascular closure device registry.

PURPOSE: Vascular closure devices are routinely used after many vascular interventional radiology procedures. However, there have been no major multicenter studies to assess the safety and effectiveness of the routine use of closure devices in interventional radiology. METHODS: The CIRSE registry of closure devices with an anchor and a plug started in January 2009 and ended in August 2009. A total of 1,107 patients were included in the registry. RESULTS: Deployment success was 97.2%. Deployment failure specified to access type was 8.8% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 5.0-14.5] for antegrade access and 1.8% (95% CI 1.1-2.9) for retrograde access (P = 0.001). There was no difference in deployment failure related to local PVD at the access site. Calcification was a reason for deployment failure in only <0.5% of patients. Postdeployment bleeding occurred in 6.4%, and most these (51.5%) could be managed with light manual compression. During follow-up, other device-related complications were reported in 1.3%: seven false aneurysms, three hematoma >5.9 cm, and two vessel occlusions. CONCLUSION: The conclusion of this registry of closure devices with an anchor and a plug is that the use of this device in interventional radiology procedures is safe, with a low incidence of serious access site complications. There seems to be no difference in complications between antegrade and retrograde access and other parameters.