Trial finds IVUS-guided angioplasty improves revascularization rates in patients with femoropopliteal artery disease, indicating potential for better clinical outcomes.
The IVUS-DCB (Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Femoropopliteal Artery Disease) trial found that intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty was associated with superior 12-month outcomes, compared with conventional angiography-guided DCB angioplasty. However, the durability of these benefits remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the 24-month outcomes of IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided DCB angioplasty for femoropopliteal artery disease. This extended study analyzed a total of 237 patients who were previously randomized into IVUS-guidance (n=119) or angiography-guidance (n=118) groups in the original IVUS-DCB trial. The 24-month clinical efficacy outcomes included freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization, sustained clinical and hemodynamic improvements, and freedom from major amputation. At 24-month follow-up, the IVUS-guidance group exhibited significantly higher rates of freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (87.4% versus 78.0%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.24-0.88]; P=0.02), sustained clinical improvement (82.4% versus 71.2%, P=0.02), and sustained hemodynamic improvement (74.8% versus 61.0%, P=0.01), compared with the angiography-guidance group. No major amputations occurred in either group during the 24-month follow-up. There were no significant differences in safety outcomes between groups, including all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and major bleeding. At 24-month follow-up, IVUS-guided DCB angioplasty for femoropopliteal artery disease continued to demonstrate superior outcomes, compared with angiography-guided DCB angioplasty, in terms of freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization, sustained clinical improvement, and sustained hemodynamic improvement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: