Randomized Trial of Chocolate Touch Compared With Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon in Femoropopliteal Lesions (Chocolate Touch Study).

BACKGROUND: First-generation drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have significantly reduced the rate of restenosis compared with balloon angioplasty alone; however, high rates of bailout stenting and dissections persist. The Chocolate Touch DCB is a nitinol constrained balloon designed to reduce acute vessel trauma and inhibit neointima formation and restenosis. METHODS: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) and superficial femoral or popliteal disease (≥70% stenosis) were randomized 1:1 to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB at 34 sites in the United States, Europe, and New Zealand. The primary efficacy end point was DCB success, defined as primary patency at 12 months (peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 by duplex ultrasound without clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the absence of clinically driven bailout stenting). The primary safety end point was freedom from major adverse events at 12 months, a composite of target limb-related death, major amputation, or reintervention. Both primary end points were tested for noninferiority, and if met, sequential superiority testing for efficacy followed by safety was prespecified. An independent clinical events committee, and angiographic and duplex ultrasound core laboratories blinded to treatment allocation reviewed all end points. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were randomized to Chocolate Touch (n=152) versus Lutonix DCB (n=161). Follow-up at 1 year was available in 94% of patients. The mean age was 69.4±9.5 years, the average lesion length was 78.1±46.9 mm, and 46.2% had moderate-to-severe calcification. The primary efficacy rates of DCB success at 12 months was 78.8% (108/137) with Chocolate Touch and 67.7% (88/130) with Lutonix DCB (difference, 11.1% [95% CI, 0.6-21.7]), meeting noninferiority (Pnoninferiority<0.0001) and sequential superiority (Psuperiority=0.04). The primary safety event rate was 88.9% (128/144) with Chocolate Touch and 84.6% (126/149) with Lutonix DCB (Pnoninferiority<0.001; Psuperiority=0.27). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, the second-generation Chocolate Touch DCB met both noninferiority end points for efficacy and safety and was more effective than Lutonix DCB at 12 months for the treatment of femoropopliteal disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924857.

Chocolate Touch Versus Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon for Femoropopliteal Lesions in Diabetes: The Chocolate Touch Study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized Chocolate Touch Study demonstrated that in patients undergoing treatment of femoropopliteal artery lesions, the Chocolate Touch drug-coated balloon (DCB) was safe and had superior efficacy at 12 months compared with the Lutonix DCB. We report the prespecified diabetes subanalysis comparing outcomes among patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) were randomized to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB. The primary efficacy endpoint was DCB success defined as primary patency at 12 months (peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 by duplex ultrasound without clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the absence of bailout stenting). The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major adverse events at 12 months, a composite of target limb-related death, major amputation, or reintervention. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients (38% DM [n=119]) were randomized to either Chocolate Touch (n=66/152) or Lutonix DCB (n=53/161). Among patients with DM, DCB success was 77.2% and 60.5% (p=0.08), and in non-DM patients, DCB success was 80% and 71.3% (p=0.2114) for the Chocolate Touch and Lutonix DCB, respectively. The primary safety endpoint was similar for both cohorts regardless of DM status (interaction test, p=0.96). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial demonstrated similar safety and efficacy for the treatment of femoropopliteal disease with the Chocolate Touch DCB compared with using the Lutonix DCB regardless of DM status at 12 months. CLINICAL IMPACT: This substudy of the Chocolate Touch Study demonstrated similar safety and efficacy for treatment of femoropopliteal disease of the Chocolate Touch DCB compared with the Lutonix DCB regardless of diabetes (DM) status at 12 months. Endovascular therapy has become the therapy of choice for the treatment of most symptomatic femoropopliteal lesions regardless of DM status. These results give clinicians another option when treating femoropopliteal disease in this high-risk patient population.

No Mortality Signal With Stellarex Low-Dose Paclitaxel DCB: ILLUMENATE Pivotal 4-Year Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel-coated balloons have shown safety and efficacy in the short- to intermediate-term; however, long-term data remain limited. OBJECTIVES: To report late safety and efficacy outcomes for a low-dose paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (DCB) compared with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) in femoropopliteal lesions from a large randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: ILLUMENATE Pivotal is a multicenter, single-blind RCT conducted across 43 US and EU centers to examine the safety and efficacy of the Stellarex DCB for the treatment of femoropopliteal disease. Assessments were recorded for all active patients at 36 and 48 months. Vital status of patients formally exited from the study was also collected. RESULTS: Primary patency through 36 months for patients treated with DCB was significantly higher compared with PTA (p=0.016). The primary safety endpoint through 36 months was 77.4% and 72.4%, respectively (p=0.377). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that a higher proportion of DCB subjects were event-free compared with PTA at all study visits. The rate of major adverse event (MAE) through 48 months was 32.9% in the DCB group and 37.9% in the PTA group (p=0.428). No differences in the rate of mortality were evident through 48 months of follow-up with 15.6% in the DCB group and 15.2% in the PTA group (p=0.929). CONCLUSIONS: Stellarex DCB was associated with significantly higher patency compared with PTA through 3 years with no mortality difference detected through 4 years. The data from the ILLUMENATE Pivotal RCT support the long-term safety and efficacy of the low-dose Stellarex DCB.

Comparative Outcomes of Supera Interwoven Nitinol vs Bare Nitinol Stents for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Disease: Insights From the XLPAD Registry.

Purpose: To report a propensity score analysis comparing outcomes of the Supera interwoven nitinol stent to bare nitinol stents (BNS) in the femoropopliteal segment. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted utilizing data extracted from the Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01904851) on 871 patients (mean age 65.1 years; 713 men) who underwent femoropopliteal balloon angioplasty with either Supera stent implantation in 118 limbs or other contemporary BNS in 753 limbs between January 2006 and December 2016. All patients in both groups were matched for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in a 1:1 propensity score matching using the nearest neighbor method to create the 118-patient matched BNS cohort. One-year outcomes included all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target limb revascularization (TLR). An additional core laboratory analysis was conducted to measure the deployed length of Supera stents. Results: In unmatched data, the Supera stent group had a numerically lower rate of TVR (7.6% vs 13.4%, p=0.08) and a significantly lower 1-year TLR rate (7.6% vs 16.2%, p=0.02) compared to the BNS group. Both groups had similar 1-year mortality (2.5% vs 2.7%, p=0.9). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the Supera group had a significantly lower risk of TVR (p=0.02) and TLR (p=0.002) than the BNS group. After propensity matching, the 1-year TVR estimate was lower for Supera stents (7.6% vs 12.7%, p=0.08) and significantly lower for TLR (7.6% vs 13.6%, p=0.04) than the BNS group. There was no statistically significant association between Supera stent elongation (>10% of the labeled stent length) and 1-year risk of TLR (p=0.6). Conclusion: Supera stent usage in femoropopliteal intervention was associated with reduced risk of 1-year repeat target limb revascularization compared with BNS treatment in both unmatched and matched cohorts.

iCAST Balloon-Expandable Covered Stent for Iliac Artery Lesions: 3-Year Results from the iCARUS Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of the iCAST Covered Stent for treatment of iliac artery atherosclerotic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The iCARUS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00593385) was a single-arm, prospective, multicenter study that enrolled 152 per protocol subjects at 25 sites in the United States and Germany. Subjects with multiple lesions and/or stents were eligible. The primary endpoint was the composite rate of death within 30 days, target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 9 months, or restenosis at 9 months after procedure. Secondary endpoints included major adverse vascular events (MAVEs), primary patency, freedom from TLR, and clinical success. RESULTS: Device and acute procedural success were achieved in 98.7% and 92.7% of cases, respectively. MAVE rate was 4.6% at 30 days. The 9-month primary composite endpoint rate was 8.1% (10/123), which was below the performance goal of 16.57%. Nine-month primary patency, defined as continuous flow without revascularization, bypass, or target limb amputation, was 96.4%. Freedom from TLR at 9 months and 3 years was 97.2% and 86.6%, respectively. Early clinical success was seen in 88.7% of subjects at 30 days with sustained clinical benefit in 72.4% of subjects at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The iCARUS study demonstrated that the iCAST Covered Stent was safe and effective for treatment of atherosclerotic iliac artery lesions with sustained clinical benefit out to 3 years.

Carotid revascularization outcomes comparing distal filters, flow reversal, and endarterectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Contradictory outcomes exist for different methods of carotid artery revascularization. Here we provide the comparative rates of adverse events in patients after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid artery stenting (CAS) with a distal embolic protection device (EPD), and CAS with a proximal flow reversal system (FRS) from a single institution by various specialists treating carotid artery disease. METHODS: Procedural billing codes and the electronic medical records of patients undergoing revascularization for carotid artery stenosis from February 2007 through March 2010 were used for data collection. Primary outcome was the incidence of cerebrovascular accident (CVA), myocardial infarction (MI), or death after CEA and CAS. Each practitioner determined the choice of therapy, with five of the 14 specialists providing both CAS and CEA. Baseline characteristics were examined for effect on outcome. Planned comparisons between and within groups were analyzed using χ(2), t tests, and analysis of variance, as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 495 procedures were documented, comprising 226 CEA, 216 CAS with EPD, and 53 CAS with FRS. Preoperative comparisons of patient comorbidities were similar among the cohorts. The carotid artery stenosis was symptomatic in 42% of these patients. Prior CEA was an indication for CAS rather than another CEA (P < .001). Significantly fewer patients undergoing CEA were receiving preoperative antiplatelet therapy (P < .001). The groups did not differ significantly in the overall composite end point of death, CVA, and MI (4%, 5.1%, 0%; P = .1) or any individual major adverse event. Overall, patients undergoing CAS with EPD had a statistically significant greater incidence of minor CVAs than CEA patients (P = .031), which was driven by the increased CVA risk for asymptomatic patients. Secondary end points occurred rarely (<2%). There have been no reoperations or interventions in these patients to date within this institution. CONCLUSIONS: We have established a similar and low incidence of MI, CVA, and death among patients undergoing CEA and CAS, of whom approximately 40% were symptomatic. FRS provided superior results in this series; however, its use was limited to 20% of the CAS procedures. Still, zero adverse events in this cohort make FRS an exciting technology that warrants a large-scale prospective comparative study.