Heparin-bonded covered stents did not significantly improve 12-month primary patency versus bare-metal stents in the ITT analysis (70.9% vs 55.1%; p=0.11), though per-protocol analysis showed benefit.
RCT (n=141)
Single-blind
randomized
Yes
Does endovascular treatment with heparin-bonded covered stents improve 12-month patency rates compared to bare-metal stents in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease and long femoropopliteal artery lesions?
Heparin-bonded covered stents significantly improved 12-month patency compared to bare-metal stents in very long (≥20 cm) femoropopliteal lesions, though the overall intention-to-treat analysis was not statistically significant due to protocol deviations.
Absolute Event Rate: 70.9% vs 55.1%
p-value: p=0.11
OBJECTIVES: The hypothesis that endovascular treatment with covered stents has equal risks but higher efficacy than bare-metal stents (BMS) in long femoropopliteal artery disease was tested. BACKGROUND: Although endovascular treatment of short superficial femoral artery lesions revealed excellent results, efficacy in long lesions remains unsatisfactory. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, single-blind, multicenter study, 141 patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease were assigned to treatment with heparin-bonded, covered stents (Viabahn 72 patients) or BMS (69 patients). Clinical outcomes and patency rates were assessed at 1, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Mean ± SD lesion length was 19.0 ± 6.3 cm in the Viabahn group and 17.3 ± 6.6 cm in the BMS group. Major complications within 30 days were observed in 1.4%. The 12-month primary patency rates in the Viabahn and BMS groups were: intention-to-treat (ITT) 70.9% (95% confidence interval CI: 0.58 to 0.80) and 55.1% (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.67) (log-rank test p = 0.11); treatment per-protocol (TPP) 78.1% (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.86) and 53.5% (95% CI: 0.39 to 0.65) (hazard ratio: 2.23 [95% CI: 1.14 to 4.34) (log-rank test p = 0.009). In lesions ≥20 cm, (TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus class D), the 12-month patency rate was significantly longer in VIA patients in the ITT analysis (VIA 71.3% vs. BMS 36.8%; p = 0.01) and the TPP analysis (VIA 73.3% vs. BMS 33.3%; p = 0.004). Freedom from target lesion revascularization was 84.6% for Viabahn (95% CI: 0.72 to 0.91) versus 77.0% for BMS (95% CI: 0.63 to 0.85; p = 0.37). The ankle-brachial index in the Viabahn group significantly increased to 0.94 ± 0.23 compared with the BMS group (0.85 ± 0.23; p < 0.05) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial in symptomatic patients with peripheral arterial disease who underwent endovascular treatment for long femoropopliteal lesions demonstrated significant clinical and patency benefits for heparin-bonded covered stents compared with BMS in lesions ≥20 cm and for all lesions in the TPP analysis. In the ITT analysis for all lesions, which was flawed by major protocol deviations in 8.5% of the patients, the difference was not significant. (GORE VIABAHN® endoprosthesis with bioactive propaten surface versus bare nitinol stent in the treatment of TASC B, C and D lesions in superficial femoral artery occlusive disease; ISRCTN48164244).
Lämmer et al. (Wed,) conducted a rct in symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (n=141). Heparin-bonded covered stents (Viabahn) vs. Bare-metal stents (BMS) was evaluated on 12-month primary patency (intention-to-treat) (p=0.11). Heparin-bonded covered stents did not significantly improve 12-month primary patency versus bare-metal stents in the ITT analysis (70.9% vs 55.1%; p=0.11), though per-protocol analysis showed benefit.