Efficiency and safety of dual pathway inhibition for the prevention of femoropopliteal artery restenosis in repeated endovascular interventions.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal strategy for evaluating the efficiency and safety of dual-pathway inhibition (DPI) in preventing femoropopliteal restenosis in patients undergoing repeated endovascular interventions. Despite several therapeutic interventions available for preventing femoropopliteal restenosis post repeated endovascular interventions, the ideal strategy, particularly evaluating the efficacy and safety of DPI, remains a matter of debate. METHODS: From January 2015 to September 2021, patients who underwent repeated endovascular interventions for femoropopliteal restenosis were compared with those who underwent DPI or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after surgery using a propensity score-matched analysis. The primary outcome was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). The principal safety outcome was a composite of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding. To further enhance the rigor, Kaplan-Meier plots, Cox proportional hazards modeling, and sensitivity analyses, as well as subgroup analyses were employed, reducing potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 441 patients were included in our study, of whom 294 (66.7%) received DAPT and 147 (33.1%) received DPI, with 114 matched pairs (mean age, 72.21 years; 84.2% male). Cumulative probability of CD-TLR at 36 months in the DPI group (17%) trended lower than that in the DAPT group (32%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.78; P =.004). The cumulative probability of freedom from CD-TLR at 36 months in the DPI group was 83%. No significant difference was observed in the composite outcome of major or CRNM bleeding between the DPI and DAPT groups (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.34 to 4.69; P = .730). The DPI group was associated with significantly lower rates of CD-TLR in the main subgroup analyses of diabetes (P = .001), previous smoking history (P = .008), longer lesion length (>10 cm) (P = .003), and treatment with debulking strategy (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In our investigation focused on CD-TLR, we found that DPI exhibited a significant reduction in the risk of reintervention compared with other treatment modalities. This underscores the potential of DPI as a viable therapeutic strategy in preventing reinterventions. Moreover, our assessment of safety outcomes revealed that the bleeding risks associated with DPI were on par with DAPT, thereby not compromising patient safety. These findings pave the way for potential broader clinical implications, emphasizing the effectiveness and safety of DPI in the context of reducing reintervention risks.