Percutaneous intervention versus surgery in the treatment of common femoral artery lesions: study protocol for the prospective, multi-center, randomized PESTO-CFA trial.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy has become established as a first-line therapy in most arterial regions. However, open vascular surgery (endarterectomy) remains the treatment of choice for common femoral artery (CFA) lesions. The aim of this study is to investigate the acute and mid-term results of directional atherectomy plus drug-coated balloon (DCB) in comparison to endarterectomy in treatment of de novo arteriosclerotic CFA lesions. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter non-inferiority study will enroll 306 participants with symptomatic (Rutherford category 1 to 5) de novo stenosis of the CFA including the bifurcation. Patients eligible for both treatment groups could be included in this 1:1 randomized trial. Primary efficacy endpoint is patency of the target lesion at 12 months defined as restenosis < 50% without the need of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (cdTLR). Primary safety endpoint is a combined endpoint including death, myocardial infarction, major or minor amputation of the target limb, and peri-procedural complications at 30 days. Secondary endpoints include primary patency of the target lesion at 6 and 24 months, secondary patency, cdTLR 6, 12, and 24 months, change in ankle-brachial index, and Rutherford-Becker class at 6, 12, and 24 months. Limb salvage, change in quality of life measured by Walking Impairment Questionnaire, and major adverse events including death, myocardial infarction, and minor or major amputation of the target limb will be determined at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. DISCUSSION: Endovascular treatment of CFA lesions is still a matter of debate. Few studies compared modern endovascular therapy methods against the so-called gold standard surgical endarterectomy so far. Based on recent positive results, this study aims to confirm non-inferiority of a "leaving nothing behind" endovascular approach combining directional atherectomy and DCB compared to surgical therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02517827.

Matched comparison of uncoated and paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty for isolated popliteal lesions excluding bail-out stenting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCB) in isolated popliteal lesions. BACKGROUND: The benefit of using DCB in femoropopliteal arteries including the proximal popliteal artery has been demonstrated, but has not yet been evaluated for isolated popliteal lesions. METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study includes patients requiring treatment with DCB of isolated popliteal lesions. Two cohorts matched (Plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) versus DCB) by their baseline and lesion characteristics were compared. Lesions receiving bail-out stents were excluded. Primary endpoint was the 1-year target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate. Secondary endpoints included the procedural success and complication rate, primary patency, changes in Rutherford-Becker class (RBC) and ankle-brachial index (ABI). RESULTS: One hundred and seven patients were included in this study. More than one third of the patients had critical limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) (35 % (POBA) versus 40.4 % (DCB), p = 0.354. The technical success rate of the procedure was 85.1 % (n = 40/47) in the DCB group and 83.3 % (n = 60) in the POBA group (p = 0.510). There were three complications in the POBA group (5.0 %) but none in the DCB group (p = 0.172). After 12 months, in the entire cohort 14 patients (13.1 %) had to undergo a TLR. The TLR-free survival was 81.7 % in the POBA and 93.6 % in the DCB group (p = 0.060). Primary patency rates after POBA and DCB were 65.1 % and 87.5 % at 6 months (p = 0.024), respectively. At 12 months, the patency rates were 71.7 % and 85.1 % (p = 0.076), respectively. For both treatment arms, there was a significant improvement in ABI and RBC compared to baseline. Four patients from the DCB group and two from the POBA group received a minor amputation (p = 0.232). One patient in the DCB group died within 12 months. CONCLUSION: After one year the use of DCB is by trend more effective for the treatment of isolated popliteal stenosis compared to POBA. A larger scale prospective study is mandatory.