Long-term mortality rate and clinical outcomes associated with femoro-popliteal drug–coated balloon angioplasty and drug-eluting stents in chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: an analysis of the BASIL-3 RCT

Résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: In recent years there have been a plethora of new endovascular devices have entered the market, including paclitaxel (PTX) drug-coated balloons (DCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) for treating patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI). There have been concerns that the use of PTX is associated with increased all-cause mortality rate in this patient population. METHODS: In the BASIL-3 trial (ISRCTN14469736) UK patients with CLTI were randomized (1:1:1) to receive femoro-popliteal (FP) plain balloon angioplasty (PBA; with or without bailout bare metal stenting (BMS), DCB angioplasty (DCBA) (with or without BMS), or primary DES. Here, data from the DCBA and DES arms have been pooled into a single 'drug technologies' (DT) group and compared with PBA ± BMS. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included amputation-free survival (AFS), major amputations, major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiovascular events, reinterventions, and 30-day mortality and morbidity rates. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-one participants were randomized (PBA: n = 160; DT: n = 321). At a median follow-up in survivors of 5.6 years, OS was similar between the pooled DT and PBA groups (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.83; 95% c.i.: 0.64 to 1.07). There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in AFS between the groups (adjusted HR: 0.84; 95% c.i.: 0.66 to 1.06), or other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This further pooled analysis of the BASIL-3 RCT does not support the notion that the use of drug-eluting technologies, when compared to plain balloon angioplasty, increases all-cause mortality rate, or has other clinically important adverse effects, when used in patients with CLTI.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.