3-Year Outcomes of Low-Dose vs High-Dose Drug-Coated Balloons in Femoropopliteal Artery Disease

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: In the PROSPECT MONSTER study, LD-DCB demonstrated comparable 1-year outcomes to HD-DCB in a real-world population; however, long-term comparative data remain limited. OBJECTIVES: To compare 3-year outcomes of a second-generation low-dose drug-coated balloon (LD-DCB; Ranger) vs a first-generation high-dose drug-coated balloon (HD-DCB; IN.PACT) in symptomatic femoropopliteal artery (FPA) disease. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, study included 581 patients undergoing endovascular therapy with LD-DCB (n = 370) or HD-DCB (n = 211) for FPA disease. Median follow-up was 19.9 (IQR: 9.4-37.7) months. Primary outcomes were 3-year primary patency and freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization, assessed after propensity score matching. Secondary outcomes included major adverse limb events, limb salvage, and overall survival. RESULTS: Propensity score matching in an approximate 2:1 ratio extracted 163 matched sets (358 and 163 patients in LD-DCB and HD-DCB, respectively) with no significant baseline differences. The median follow-up among matched participants was 19.9 (9.2-37.9) months. At 3 years, primary patency (60.1% [95% CI: 53.1%-67.9%] vs 48.4% [39.3%-59.7%]; HR: 1.02 [0.60-1.73], P = 0.93) and freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (71.0% [64.7%-77.9%] vs 59.9% [50.8%-70.7%]; hazard ratio: 1.02 [0.58-1.81], P = 0.94) were similar between groups. Secondary outcomes were comparable. No baseline characteristics showed a significant interaction with 3-year restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world population with complex FPA disease, second-generation LD-DCB demonstrated 3-year clinical outcomes comparable to those of first-generation HD-DCB. These findings support the use of second-generation LD-DCB as a reasonable treatment option and suggest that comparable efficacy may be achieved despite substantially lower paclitaxel exposure.

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