ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the current use of drug-eluting devices for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) among interventional radiologists following the controversy caused by the 2018 meta-analysis suggesting an increased mortality risk for paclitaxel-eluting devices. METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to 7035 CIRSE members via email; only complete responses were included and statistically analysed. RESULTS: Three hundred and seven members (4.4%) completed the survey. Among these, 95.8% indicated that they personally perform peripheral vascular procedures. Thirty-eight percentage of respondents did not see any change of practice since 2018, while 47% reported that the use of drug-eluting devices decreased; for 13%, the use stopped altogether, while it increased in 3% of responses. 45.6% of respondents also felt the impact of the controversy in terms of pricing, availability or directives from hospital administration. A large majority of respondents (83.7%) who perform peripheral vascular procedures consider the use of these devices as safe, 12.9% were undecided and 3.4% did not consider them as safe. Among the respondents who do not perform endovascular procedures, 77% considered these devices as safe and 23% were undecided. CONCLUSION: Although the 2018 meta-analysis had a disruptive impact on the use of drug-eluting devices in PAD, with the increasing body of evidence available, a majority of respondents continue to believe in the safety of these devices for use in femoropopliteal disease.
