Gunnar Tepe1, Marianne Brodmann2, Martin Werner3, William Bachinsky4, Andrew Holden5, Thomas Zeller6, Sarang Mangalmurti7, Claus Nolte-Ernsting8, Barry Bertolet9, Dierk Scheinert10, William A Gray11. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, RoMed Klinikum, Rosenheim, Germany. 2. Division of Angiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Universitätsklinikum LKH Graz, Graz, Austria. 3. Department of Angiology, Hanusch Krankenhaus, Vienna, Austria. 4. UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, UPMC Pinnacle Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Department of Interventional Radiology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. Division of Angiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Universitäts-Herzzentrum Freiburg and Bad Krozingen, Bad Krozingen, Germany. 7. Department of Interventional Cardiology, Main Line Hospitals, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Mülheim an der Ruhr, Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany. 9. Cardiology Associates Research LLC, North Mississippi Medical Center, Tupelo, Mississippi, USA. 10. Department of Interventional Angiology, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AoR, Leipzig, Germany. 11. Division of Cardiology, Main Line Health, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, USA. Electronic address: grayw@mlhs.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare short-term outcomes in patients with femoropopliteal artery calcification receiving vessel preparation with intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) prior to drug-coated balloon (DCB) for symptomatic peripheral artery disease. BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment of calcified peripheral artery lesions is associated with suboptimal vessel expansion and increased complication risk. Although initial results from single-arm studies with IVL have been reported, comparative evidence from randomized trials is lacking for most devices in the presence of heavy calcification. METHODS: The Disrupt PAD III (Shockwave Medical Peripheral Lithoplasty System Study for PAD) randomized trial enrolled patients with moderate or severe calcification in a femoropopliteal artery who underwent vessel preparation with IVL or PTA prior to DCB or stenting. The primary endpoint was core lab-adjudicated procedural success (residual stenosis ≤30% without flow-limiting dissection) prior to DCB or stenting. RESULTS: In patients receiving IVL (n = 153) or PTA (n = 153), procedural success was greater in the IVL group (65.8% vs. 50.4%; p = 0.01) and the percentage of lesions with residual stenosis ≤30% (66.4% vs. 51.9%; p = 0.02) was greater in the IVL group, while flow-limiting dissections occurred more frequently in the PTA group (1.4% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.03). Post-dilatation (5.2% vs. 17.0%; p = 0.001) and stent placement (4.6% vs. 18.3%; p < 0.001) were also greater in the PTA group. The rates of major adverse events (IVL: 0% vs. PTA: 1.3%; p = 0.16) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (IVL: 0.7% vs. PTA: 0.7%; p = 1.0) at 30 days were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: IVL is an effective vessel preparation strategy that facilitates definitive endovascular treatment in calcified femoropopliteal arteries in patients with peripheral artery disease. (Shockwave Medical Peripheral Lithoplasty System Study for PAD [Disrupt PAD III]; NCT02923193).
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare short-term outcomes in patients with femoropopliteal artery calcification receiving vessel preparation with intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) prior to drug-coated balloon (DCB) for symptomatic peripheral artery disease. BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment of calcified peripheral artery lesions is associated with suboptimal vessel expansion and increased complication risk. Although initial results from single-arm studies with IVL have been reported, comparative evidence from randomized trials is lacking for most devices in the presence of heavy calcification. METHODS: The Disrupt PAD III (Shockwave Medical Peripheral Lithoplasty System Study for PAD) randomized trial enrolled patients with moderate or severe calcification in a femoropopliteal artery who underwent vessel preparation with IVL or PTA prior to DCB or stenting. The primary endpoint was core lab-adjudicated procedural success (residual stenosis ≤30% without flow-limiting dissection) prior to DCB or stenting. RESULTS: In patients receiving IVL (n = 153) or PTA (n = 153), procedural success was greater in the IVL group (65.8% vs. 50.4%; p = 0.01) and the percentage of lesions with residual stenosis ≤30% (66.4% vs. 51.9%; p = 0.02) was greater in the IVL group, while flow-limiting dissections occurred more frequently in the PTA group (1.4% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.03). Post-dilatation (5.2% vs. 17.0%; p = 0.001) and stent placement (4.6% vs. 18.3%; p < 0.001) were also greater in the PTA group. The rates of major adverse events (IVL: 0% vs. PTA: 1.3%; p = 0.16) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (IVL: 0.7% vs. PTA: 0.7%; p = 1.0) at 30 days were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: IVL is an effective vessel preparation strategy that facilitates definitive endovascular treatment in calcified femoropopliteal arteries in patients with peripheral artery disease. (Shockwave Medical Peripheral Lithoplasty System Study for PAD [Disrupt PAD III]; NCT02923193).
Authors: Ramya C Mosarla; Ehrin Armstrong; Yonatan Bitton-Faiwiszewski; Peter A Schneider; Eric A Secemsky Journal: J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv Date: 2022-08-20
Authors: Nicolas W Shammas; Bhaskar Purushottam; W John Shammas; Lori Christensen; Gail Shammas; Desyree Weakley; Sue Jones-Miller Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag Date: 2022-08-02