Article

Dutch iliac stent trial: Long-term results in patients randomized for primary or selective stent placement

Utrecht University, Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.21). 03/2006; 238(2):734-44. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2382041053
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine long-term results of the prospective Dutch Iliac Stent Trial.
The study protocol was approved by local institutional review boards. All patients gave written informed consent. Two hundred seventy-nine patients (201 men, 78 women; mean age, 58 years) with iliac artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo primary stent placement (143 patients) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with selective stent placement in cases in which the residual mean pressure gradient was greater than 10 mm Hg across the treated site (136 patients). Before and at 3, 12, and 24 months and 5-8 years after treatment, all patients underwent assessment, which included duplex ultrasonography (US), ankle-brachial index (ABI) measurement, Fontaine classification of symptoms, and completion of the Rand 36-Item Health survey for quality-of-life assessment. Treatment was considered successful for symptoms if symptoms increased at least one Fontaine grade, for ABI if ABI increased more than 0.10, for patency if peak systolic velocity ratio at duplex US was less than 2.5, and for quality of life if the RAND 36-Item Health Survey score increased more than 15 points. Effects of both treatments on symptoms, quality of life, patency, and ABI were compared by using survival analyses.
Patients who underwent PTA and selective stent placement had better improvement of symptoms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.8; 95% confidence limits [CLs]: 0.6, 1.0) than did patients treated with primary stent placement, whereas ABI (HR, 0.9; 95% CLs: 0.7, 1.3), iliac patency (HR, 1.3; 95% CLs: 0.8, 2.1), and score for quality of life for nine survey dimensions did not support a difference between treatment groups.
Patients treated with PTA and selective stent placement in the iliac artery had a better outcome for symptomatic success compared with patients treated with primary stent placement, whereas data about iliac patency, ABI, and quality of life did not support a difference between groups.

0 Followers
 · 
115 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In endovascular recanalisation of infrapopliteal arteries, studies have already pointed out the value of balloon angioplasty, but for stent implantation very few randomized controlled data exist so far. We conducted a randomized controlled prospective trial in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) comparing the effect of percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty (PTA) versus primary stenting in infrapopliteal arteries, concerning 1-year clinical benefit and reobstruction rate. 54 patients were either randomized for primary stenting (balloon expandable stent) or PTA alone, 33 patients were assigned to the PTA group, 21 patients to the stent group. The whole follow up period of 12 months was completed by 46 patients. Improvement by at least one Rutherford classification was reached by a total of 33 (75.0 %) of patients at month 12, 22 (81.5 %) in the PTA group and 11 (64.7 %) in the stent group. A complete ulcer healing at month 12 showed 21 (63.6 %) of all patients, with a higher percentage in patients treated with PTA alone 16 (80.0 %) vs 5 (38.5 %). 50.0 % of all patients showed re-obstruction over the follow-up period, 39.4 % of the PTA and 66.7 % of the stent group. At month 3 primary patency rate was nearly equal in both groups (76.7 % PTA vs 75.0 % stent), but drifted apart with the duration of the follow-up period, with a primary patency at month 12 in the PTA group of 48,1 % vs 35,3 % in the stent group. As for secondary patency at month 12 the PTA group showed a patency rate of 70.4 %, vs 52.9 % in the stent group. Primary stenting with balloon expandable stents in the infrapopliteal arteries does not outway the benefit of PTA alone with the application of modern hydrophilic balloon catheters in patients with CLI.
    VASA.: Zeitschrift für Gefässkrankheiten. Journal for vascular diseases 11/2011; 40(6):482-90. DOI:10.1024/0301-1526/a000152 · 1.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is highly prevalent and can manifest as intermittent claudication or, in the most advanced form, critical limb ischemia. Revascularization, which can be accomplished by an endovascular or surgical approach, is performed to improve quality of life or, in severe cases, for limb salvage. Over the past decade, percutaneous catheter-based techniques have improved such that acute procedural success is high even in complex anatomy. Patency rates have also increased with the use of atherectomy devices and drug-eluting stents. Often, patients with PAD have comorbidities that increase the risk of cardiovascular complications with surgical procedures. These factors have led to the adoption of an endovascular first strategy with surgical management reserved for selected patients. This review focuses on the most current clinical trials of endovascular therapy for PAD. In addition, older but relevant studies comparing endovascular and surgical approaches and contemporary surgical trials are presented for reference.
    Current Atherosclerosis Reports 02/2015; 17(2):479. DOI:10.1007/s11883-014-0479-0 · 3.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Iliac artery atherosclerotic disease may cause intermittent claudication and critical limb ischemia. It can lead to serious complications such as infection, amputation and even death. Revascularization relieves symptoms and prevents these complications. Historically, open surgical repair, in the form of endarterectomy or bypass, was used. Over the last decade, endovascular repair has become the first choice of treatment for iliac arterial occlusive disease. No definitive consensus has emerged about the best endovascular strategy and which type of stent, if any, to use. However, in more advanced disease, that is, long or multiple stenoses or occlusions, literature is most supportive of primary stenting with a balloon-expandable stent in the common iliac artery (Jongkind V et al., J Vasc Surg 52:1376-1383,2010). Recently, a PTFE-covered balloon-expandable stent (Advanta V12, Atrium Medical Inc., Hudson, NH, USA) has been introduced for the iliac artery. Covering stents with PTFE has been shown to lead to less neo-intimal hyperplasia and this might lower restenosis rates (Dolmatch B et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:527-534,2007, Marin ML et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol 7:651-656,1996, Virmani R et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol 10:445-456,1999). However, only one RCT, of mediocre quality has been published on this stent in the common iliac artery (Mwipatayi BP et al. J Vasc Surg 54:1561-1570,2011, Bekken JA et al. J Vasc Surg 55:1545-1546,2012). Our hypothesis is that covered balloon-expandable stents lead to better results when compared to uncovered balloon-expandable stents. Methods/Design This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multi-center trial. The study population consists of human volunteers aged over 18 years, with symptomatic advanced atherosclerotic disease of the common iliac artery, defined as stenoses longer than 3 cm and occlusions. A total of 174 patients will be included. The control group will undergo endovascular dilatation or revascularization of the common iliac artery, followed by placement of one or more uncovered balloon-expandable stents. The study group will undergo the same treatment, however one or more PTFE-covered balloon-expandable stents will be placed. When necessary, the aorta, external iliac artery, common femoral artery, superficial femoral artery and deep femoral artery will be treated, using the standard treatment. The primary endpoint is absence of binary restenosis rate. Secondary endpoints are reocclusion rate, target-lesion revascularization rate, clinical success, procedural success, hemodynamic success, major amputation rate, complication rate and mortality rate. Main study parameters are age, gender, relevant co-morbidity, and several patient, disease and procedure-related parameters. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register, NTR3381.
    Trials 11/2012; 13(1):215. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-13-215 · 2.12 Impact Factor