Outcomes of endovascular intervention for atherosclerotic lesions confined to the popliteal artery.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Most surgeons employ an endovascular-first approach to the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD), but controversy remains regarding the ideal interventions for the management of isolated popliteal artery disease (IPAD). Indeed, there are a paucity of data that compare outcomes of popliteal stents vs other peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes of PVIs in IPAD. METHODS: The Vascular Study Group of New England database was queried for all IPAD PVIs performed for atherosclerotic occlusive disease from 2010 to 2021. Those with at least 1 year of follow-up data available were included for analysis. The primary endpoint was 1-year freedom from a composite target lesion (TL) treatment failure that included restenosis >50% on duplex, reintervention, or ipsilateral major amputation. RESULTS: We included 689 procedures performed on 634 patients. Of these, 250 (36.3%) were treated with plain balloons (POBA), 215 (31.2%) had stents, 170 (24.7%) had special balloons (drug-coated, cutting, or lithotripsy), and 54 (7.8%) atherectomies were performed. Stent placement was associated with lower freedom from TL treatment failure (72.6%) than special balloon (81.2%; P = .048) and atherectomy (88.9%; P = .012), but not POBA (76.8%; P = .293). On multivariable logistic regression, stents (odds ratio, 0.637; P = .021) and preoperative P2Y12 inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 0.683; P = .048) were both associated with lower freedom from intervention failure. CONCLUSIONS: Popliteal stent placement is associated with a higher rate of TL treatment failure at 1 year when compared with other PVIs including special balloon angioplasty and atherectomy, but not POBA, and should therefore be avoided in favor of special balloons or atherectomy whenever feasible.