用于股总动脉和腘动脉血管内治疗的凤凰动脉瘤切除器的安全性和有效性:EN-MOBILE试验结果。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Vascular Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-17 DOI:10.1177/1358863X241231943
Christoph Schöfthaler, Nicola Troisi, Giovanni Torsello, Amila Jehn, Michael Lichtenberg, Jan C Karcher, Konstantinos Stavroulakis, Mario D'Oria, Athanasios Saratzis, Hany Zayed, Martin Andrassy, Grigorios Korosoglou
{"title":"用于股总动脉和腘动脉血管内治疗的凤凰动脉瘤切除器的安全性和有效性:EN-MOBILE试验结果。","authors":"Christoph Schöfthaler, Nicola Troisi, Giovanni Torsello, Amila Jehn, Michael Lichtenberg, Jan C Karcher, Konstantinos Stavroulakis, Mario D'Oria, Athanasios Saratzis, Hany Zayed, Martin Andrassy, Grigorios Korosoglou","doi":"10.1177/1358863X241231943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This study aimed to assess the peri- and postprocedural outcomes of atherectomy-assisted endovascular treatment of the common femoral (CFA) and popliteal arteries. <b>Methods:</b> Phoenix atherectomy was used for the treatment of 73 and 53 de novo CFA and popliteal artery lesions, respectively, in 122 consecutive patients. Safety endpoints encompassed perforation and peripheral embolization. Postprocedural endpoints included freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) and clinical success (an improvement of ⩾ 2 Rutherford category [RC]). In addition, 531 patients treated for popliteal artery stenosis or occlusion without atherectomy were used as a comparator group. <b>Results:</b> Procedural success (residual stenosis < 30% after treatment) was 99.2%. The need for bail-out stenting was 2 (2.7%) and 3 (5.7%) in CFA and popliteal artery lesions, respectively. Only one (1.4%) embolization occurred in the CFA, which was treated by catheter aspiration. No perforations occurred. After 1.50 (IQR = 1.17-2.20) years, CD-TLR occurred in seven (9.2%) and six (14.6%) patients with CFA and popliteal artery lesions, respectively, whereas clinical success was achieved in 62 (91.2%) and 31 (75.6%), respectively. Patients treated with atherectomy and DCB in the popliteal artery after matching for baseline RC, lesion calcification, length, and the presence of chronic total occlusion, exhibited higher freedom from CD-TLR compared to the nondebulking group (HR = 3.1; 95% CI = 1.1-8.5, <i>p</i> = 0.03). <b>Conclusion:</b> Atherectomy can be used safely and is associated with low rates of bail-out stenting in CFA and popliteal arteries. CD-TLR and clinical success rates are clinically acceptable. In addition, for the popliteal artery, atherectomy combined with DCB demonstrates lower CD-TLR rates compared to a DCB alone strategy. (<b>German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00016708</b>).</p>","PeriodicalId":23604,"journal":{"name":"Vascular Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"405-415"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and effectiveness of the Phoenix atherectomy device for endovascular treatment of common femoral and popliteal arteries: Results of the EN-MOBILE trial.\",\"authors\":\"Christoph Schöfthaler, Nicola Troisi, Giovanni Torsello, Amila Jehn, Michael Lichtenberg, Jan C Karcher, Konstantinos Stavroulakis, Mario D'Oria, Athanasios Saratzis, Hany Zayed, Martin Andrassy, Grigorios Korosoglou\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1358863X241231943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This study aimed to assess the peri- and postprocedural outcomes of atherectomy-assisted endovascular treatment of the common femoral (CFA) and popliteal arteries. <b>Methods:</b> Phoenix atherectomy was used for the treatment of 73 and 53 de novo CFA and popliteal artery lesions, respectively, in 122 consecutive patients. Safety endpoints encompassed perforation and peripheral embolization. Postprocedural endpoints included freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) and clinical success (an improvement of ⩾ 2 Rutherford category [RC]). In addition, 531 patients treated for popliteal artery stenosis or occlusion without atherectomy were used as a comparator group. <b>Results:</b> Procedural success (residual stenosis < 30% after treatment) was 99.2%. The need for bail-out stenting was 2 (2.7%) and 3 (5.7%) in CFA and popliteal artery lesions, respectively. Only one (1.4%) embolization occurred in the CFA, which was treated by catheter aspiration. No perforations occurred. After 1.50 (IQR = 1.17-2.20) years, CD-TLR occurred in seven (9.2%) and six (14.6%) patients with CFA and popliteal artery lesions, respectively, whereas clinical success was achieved in 62 (91.2%) and 31 (75.6%), respectively. Patients treated with atherectomy and DCB in the popliteal artery after matching for baseline RC, lesion calcification, length, and the presence of chronic total occlusion, exhibited higher freedom from CD-TLR compared to the nondebulking group (HR = 3.1; 95% CI = 1.1-8.5, <i>p</i> = 0.03). <b>Conclusion:</b> Atherectomy can be used safely and is associated with low rates of bail-out stenting in CFA and popliteal arteries. CD-TLR and clinical success rates are clinically acceptable. In addition, for the popliteal artery, atherectomy combined with DCB demonstrates lower CD-TLR rates compared to a DCB alone strategy. (<b>German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00016708</b>).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vascular Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"405-415\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1358863X241231943\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1358863X241231943","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在评估动脉粥样硬化切除术辅助的股总动脉(CFA)和腘动脉血管内治疗的术前和术后效果。方法:对122名连续患者的73处和53处股总(CFA)和腘动脉新发病变分别采用了菲尼克斯动脉瘤切除术进行治疗。安全终点包括穿孔和外周栓塞。术后终点包括无临床驱动的靶病变血运重建(CD-TLR)和临床成功(卢瑟福分类[RC]改善⩾ 2)。此外,531 名接受过腘动脉狭窄或闭塞治疗但未进行动脉粥样硬化切除术的患者被作为对比组。结果手术成功率(治疗后残余狭窄<30%)为99.2%。在CFA和腘动脉病变中,分别有2例(2.7%)和3例(5.7%)需要保外支架治疗。仅有一次(1.4%)栓塞发生在CFA,通过导管抽吸进行了处理。没有发生穿孔。1.50(IQR = 1.17-2.20)年后,分别有 7 例(9.2%)和 6 例(14.6%)CFA 和腘动脉病变患者发生 CD-TLR,而分别有 62 例(91.2%)和 31 例(75.6%)患者获得临床成功。在对基线 RC、病变钙化、长度和是否存在慢性全闭塞进行匹配后,在腘动脉进行动脉粥样硬化切除术和 DCB 治疗的患者与非剥脱组相比,免于 CD-TLR 的比例更高(HR = 3.1;95% CI = 1.1-8.5,P = 0.03)。结论动脉粥样硬化切除术可以安全地应用于CFA和腘动脉,而且保送支架率较低。CD-TLR 和临床成功率在临床上是可以接受的。此外,就腘动脉而言,与单独使用 DCB 的策略相比,动脉粥样硬化切除术联合 DCB 的 CD-TLR 率更低。(德国临床试验注册:DRKS00016708)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety and effectiveness of the Phoenix atherectomy device for endovascular treatment of common femoral and popliteal arteries: Results of the EN-MOBILE trial.

Background: This study aimed to assess the peri- and postprocedural outcomes of atherectomy-assisted endovascular treatment of the common femoral (CFA) and popliteal arteries. Methods: Phoenix atherectomy was used for the treatment of 73 and 53 de novo CFA and popliteal artery lesions, respectively, in 122 consecutive patients. Safety endpoints encompassed perforation and peripheral embolization. Postprocedural endpoints included freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) and clinical success (an improvement of ⩾ 2 Rutherford category [RC]). In addition, 531 patients treated for popliteal artery stenosis or occlusion without atherectomy were used as a comparator group. Results: Procedural success (residual stenosis < 30% after treatment) was 99.2%. The need for bail-out stenting was 2 (2.7%) and 3 (5.7%) in CFA and popliteal artery lesions, respectively. Only one (1.4%) embolization occurred in the CFA, which was treated by catheter aspiration. No perforations occurred. After 1.50 (IQR = 1.17-2.20) years, CD-TLR occurred in seven (9.2%) and six (14.6%) patients with CFA and popliteal artery lesions, respectively, whereas clinical success was achieved in 62 (91.2%) and 31 (75.6%), respectively. Patients treated with atherectomy and DCB in the popliteal artery after matching for baseline RC, lesion calcification, length, and the presence of chronic total occlusion, exhibited higher freedom from CD-TLR compared to the nondebulking group (HR = 3.1; 95% CI = 1.1-8.5, p = 0.03). Conclusion: Atherectomy can be used safely and is associated with low rates of bail-out stenting in CFA and popliteal arteries. CD-TLR and clinical success rates are clinically acceptable. In addition, for the popliteal artery, atherectomy combined with DCB demonstrates lower CD-TLR rates compared to a DCB alone strategy. (German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00016708).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Vascular Medicine
Vascular Medicine 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.70%
发文量
158
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The premier, ISI-ranked journal of vascular medicine. Integrates the latest research in vascular biology with advancements for the practice of vascular medicine and vascular surgery. It features original research and reviews on vascular biology, epidemiology, diagnosis, medical treatment and interventions for vascular disease. A member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信