ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Subintimal angioplasty (SIA) is often utilized to cross femoropopliteal (FP) artery chronic total occlusions (CTOs). Re-entry devices (RED) can further assist with true lumen re-entry. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature for studies reporting on the use of SIA, with or without RED. METHODS: A systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. Quantitative synthesis was applied when possible. RESULTS: 87 studies and 4665 patients (5161 lesions) were included (63.9% male). 46.7% of patients had critical limb ischemia at the time of the intervention. Two RED types were used (Pioneer and Outback). Sixty-eight studies included lesions treated with SIA without RED, 17 studies included lesions treated with RED only, and two studies included a comparison between the two treatment methods. In total, 3898 (83.6%) patients were treated with SIA without RED and 754 (12.2%) with RED. Procedural success rate ranged from 64.5%-100% (92.5% for SIA without RED, 88.3% for RED cases). The complication rate ranged from 1.6% - 28% among different studies (cumulative rates: SIA: 9.1%, RED 9.3%). Perforations occurred in 1.6% of the total population (nâ¯=â¯46). Primary patency at one year ranged from 22% to 94.1%. Newer studies had a higher patency rate, ranging from 70% to 94.1%. CONCLUSION: SIA with or without RED is a valuable alternative to intraluminal crossing for endovascular treatment of FP CTOs. Procedural success was excellent for both techniques, while the cumulative complication rate was numerically lower in the RED group. Short- and long-term outcomes were acceptable for both techniques.
Subject(s)
Angioplasty/instrumentation , Femoral Artery , Peripheral Arterial Disease/therapy , Popliteal Artery , Vascular Access Devices , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Angioplasty/adverse effects , Chronic Disease , Constriction, Pathologic , Equipment Design , Female , Femoral Artery/diagnostic imaging , Femoral Artery/injuries , Femoral Artery/physiopathology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Peripheral Arterial Disease/diagnostic imaging , Peripheral Arterial Disease/physiopathology , Popliteal Artery/diagnostic imaging , Popliteal Artery/injuries , Popliteal Artery/physiopathology , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Patency , Vascular System Injuries/etiologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The benefit of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB) in coronary artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) for the prevention of target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, and mortality remains uncertain. Our aim was to synthesize the available evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that directly compare second-generation drug-eluting stents (SG-DES) and DCB for the treatment of coronary ISR. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs or observational studies, published up to March 15, 2017. A random effects model meta-analysis investigating clinical and angiographic outcomes was conducted for RCTs and observational studies that compared SG-DES versus DCB for the treatment of ISR. RESULTS: Ten studies and 2,173 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The two treatment strategies were proven equal with regards to TLR, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and cardiac mortality in both randomized and observational studies. No difference was found among RCTs for all-cause mortality, while in observational studies, patients who were treated with SG-DES had a lower mortality compared to DCB (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.27-0.83). In the pooled analysis also (RCTs and observational studies), SG-DES were associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to DCB. Patients treated with SG-DES were also superior in terms of minimal lumen diameter (standardized mean difference: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.12-0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The two treatment strategies are equal for the treatment of ISR, while the difference in all-cause mortality might be potentially explained by baseline differences in the two groups among real-world studies.
