Search

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.

Purpose: The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to determine the clinical outcome differences between patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent direct versus indirect angiosome revascularization using either the surgical or endovascular approach.Materials and Methods: The data sources used for article selection included PubMed, Embase/Medline, Cochrane reviews, and Web of Science (All studies were in English and included up to September 2023). All articles included were comparative in design, including retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes between direct and indirect angiosome-guided revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A random-effects model was used to determine the measure of association between direct revascularization and amputation-free survival, wound healing, and overall survival. Publication bias was assessed with both Begg’s and Egger’s test, and heterogeneity was calculated using an I2.Results: Data from 9 articles were analyzed and reported in this review. Direct revascularization was associated with improved amputation-free survival (odds ratio [OR]=2.632, confidence interval [CI]: 1.625, 4.265), binary wound healing (OR=2.262, CI: 1.518, 3.372), and overall survival (OR=1.757, CI: 1.176, 2.625). Time until wound healed was not associated with either direct or indirect revascularization (Standard Mean Difference [SMD]=−2.15, p=0.11). There was a low risk of bias across all studies according to the RoB 2.0 tool.Conclusion: Direct revascularization is associated with improved amputation-free survival, overall survival, and wound healing in chronic limb-threatening ischemic patients compared to the indirect approach.Clinical Impact Preservation of the lower extremity is critical for preventing mortality and maintaining independence. The benefit of angiosome-guided revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia remains controversial. The authors of this article aim to review the current literature and compare direct and indirect angiosome-guided intervention for preserving the lower extremity. Current findings suggest direct angiosome-guided intervention reduces amputation rates and improves survival; however, many trials neglect to address the multifactorial approach needed in wound care management.

Background: Nitinol interwoven bare metal stents represent an advancement in stent technology; however, nominal deployment remains an area of focus. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been shown to improve outcomes in both the coronary and peripheral vasculature by providing the operator with greater vessel detail; however, the use of adjunctive IVUS with nitinol bare metal stents has not been widely studied. This studies aims to determine the effect of IVUS when used adjunctively with nitinol interwoven bare metal stents in the management of femoropopliteal lesions.Design: Retrospective study.Methods: This study included a cohort of 200 consecutive patients with peripheral artery disease. All patients were treated with ≥1 Supera bare metal stent, and 91 received adjunctive IVUS imaging prior to stent deployment. Deployment conditions of nominal, compressed, and elongated were measured, and the primary clinical outcomes included target lesion reintervention, amputation, and mortality. This study also showed that 8.3 number needed to treat (NNT) patients must be treated with IVUS to avoid an additional revascularization event.Results: The patients who received IVUS had a significantly greater number of nominally deployed stents (p<0.001). Patients who had IVUS imaging also had significantly lower reintervention rates compared with those who did not receive IVUS imaging (p=0.047).Conclusion: The IVUS and angiography decreases clinically-driven target lesion reintervention and increases nominal deployment compared with angiography alone in femoropopliteal lesions treated with interwoven bare metal nitinol stents.Clinical Impact Endovascular surgones may conisder the adjuctive use of IVUS when using the Supera stent for the treatment of infra inguinal superficial femoral artery lesions. The adjunct use of IVUS may lead to improved sizing, vessel prep, deployment, and ultiamtely reduction in CD-TLR.