Grigorios Korosoglou, Jason T Lee, Martin Andrassy, Drosos Kotelis, Marco V Usai, Mario D'Oria, Raphael Coscas, Nicola Troisi, Bahaa Nasr, Athanasios Saratzis, Solon Antoniades, Konstantinos P Donas
{"title":"动脉粥样硬化性股动脉疾病的动脉粥样切除术辅助血管内治疗与开放修复:多中心ARISTON研究","authors":"Grigorios Korosoglou, Jason T Lee, Martin Andrassy, Drosos Kotelis, Marco V Usai, Mario D'Oria, Raphael Coscas, Nicola Troisi, Bahaa Nasr, Athanasios Saratzis, Solon Antoniades, Konstantinos P Donas","doi":"10.1177/1358863X251323508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endarterectomy (open repair) represents the gold-standard for common femoral atherosclerotic disease (CFAD) treatment. However, with developments like atherectomy, endovascular therapy (endovascular revascularization) may offer an alternative option. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endovascular versus open therapy for the CFAD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ARISTON (AtheRectomy-assIsted endovaScular Therapy versus OpeN) study was an 11-center research collaborative in which data from consecutive patients with symptomatic CFAD were analyzed. Retrospective matching was performed for patient-specific characteristics, including age, cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, and lesion-specific variables, including lesion calcification and complexity. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Amputation-free survival (AFS) was a secondary endpoint.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2015 to 2022, 826 patients undergoing endovascular (<i>n</i> = 213 [25.8%]) versus open therapy (<i>n</i> = 613 [74.2%]) were analyzed. The total number of procedural complications was higher with open therapy, whereas hospital stay was shorter with endovascular therapy (<i>p</i> < 0.0001 for both). Major adverse cardiac and limb events at 30-day outcomes were, however, not statistically different (<i>p</i> = 0.06). Bail-out stent rates with atherectomy-assisted endovascular therapy were 5.1%. After matching and during 1.72 (0.9-3.3) years of follow up, all-cause mortality, AFS, and CD-TLR were not statistically different in endovascular versus open therapy (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.36-1.29; HR = 1.5, 95% CI 0.59-3.77; and HR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.61-3.49, <i>p</i> = NS for all).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Endovascular and open therapy exhibit comparable outcomes for the treatment of patients with symptomatic CFAD, including similar CD-TLR in patients with claudication and AFS in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, during short-term follow up. Atherectomy-assisted endovascular therapy may therefore provide a useful alternative for patients who are unfit for surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":23604,"journal":{"name":"Vascular Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"170-182"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Atherectomy-assisted endovascular therapy versus open repair for atherosclerotic common femoral artery disease: The multicenter ARISTON study.\",\"authors\":\"Grigorios Korosoglou, Jason T Lee, Martin Andrassy, Drosos Kotelis, Marco V Usai, Mario D'Oria, Raphael Coscas, Nicola Troisi, Bahaa Nasr, Athanasios Saratzis, Solon Antoniades, Konstantinos P Donas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1358863X251323508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endarterectomy (open repair) represents the gold-standard for common femoral atherosclerotic disease (CFAD) treatment. However, with developments like atherectomy, endovascular therapy (endovascular revascularization) may offer an alternative option. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endovascular versus open therapy for the CFAD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ARISTON (AtheRectomy-assIsted endovaScular Therapy versus OpeN) study was an 11-center research collaborative in which data from consecutive patients with symptomatic CFAD were analyzed. Retrospective matching was performed for patient-specific characteristics, including age, cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, and lesion-specific variables, including lesion calcification and complexity. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Amputation-free survival (AFS) was a secondary endpoint.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2015 to 2022, 826 patients undergoing endovascular (<i>n</i> = 213 [25.8%]) versus open therapy (<i>n</i> = 613 [74.2%]) were analyzed. The total number of procedural complications was higher with open therapy, whereas hospital stay was shorter with endovascular therapy (<i>p</i> < 0.0001 for both). Major adverse cardiac and limb events at 30-day outcomes were, however, not statistically different (<i>p</i> = 0.06). Bail-out stent rates with atherectomy-assisted endovascular therapy were 5.1%. After matching and during 1.72 (0.9-3.3) years of follow up, all-cause mortality, AFS, and CD-TLR were not statistically different in endovascular versus open therapy (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.36-1.29; HR = 1.5, 95% CI 0.59-3.77; and HR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.61-3.49, <i>p</i> = NS for all).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Endovascular and open therapy exhibit comparable outcomes for the treatment of patients with symptomatic CFAD, including similar CD-TLR in patients with claudication and AFS in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, during short-term follow up. Atherectomy-assisted endovascular therapy may therefore provide a useful alternative for patients who are unfit for surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vascular Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"170-182\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"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/10.1177/1358863X251323508\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/13 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/10.1177/1358863X251323508","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:动脉内膜切除术(开放式修复)是普通股动脉粥样硬化疾病(CFAD)治疗的金标准。然而,随着动脉粥样硬化切除术的发展,血管内治疗(血管内血运重建术)可能提供另一种选择。本研究的目的是评估血管内治疗与开放治疗对CFAD的安全性和有效性。方法:ARISTON(动脉粥样硬化切除术辅助血管内治疗与开放)研究是一项11中心合作研究,分析了连续有症状的CFAD患者的数据。对患者特异性特征进行回顾性匹配,包括年龄、心血管危险因素和合并症,以及病变特异性变量,包括病变钙化和复杂性。主要终点是全因死亡率和免于临床驱动的靶病变血运重建(CD-TLR)。无截肢生存期(AFS)是次要终点。结果:2015年至2022年,826例患者接受了血管内治疗(n = 213例[25.8%])和开放治疗(n = 613例[74.2%])。开放治疗的手术并发症总数较高,而血管内治疗的住院时间较短(两者的p < 0.0001)。然而,30天的主要心脏和肢体不良事件没有统计学差异(p = 0.06)。动脉切除术辅助血管内支架置入率为5.1%。匹配后随访1.72年(0.9-3.3年),血管内治疗与开放治疗的全因死亡率、AFS和CD-TLR无统计学差异(HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.36-1.29;Hr = 1.5, 95% ci 0.59-3.77;HR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.61-3.49, p = NS)。结论:在短期随访中,血管内治疗和开放治疗在治疗有症状的CFAD患者中表现出相似的结果,包括跛行患者的CD-TLR和严重肢体威胁缺血患者的AFS。因此,动脉粥样硬化切除术辅助血管内治疗可能为不适合手术的患者提供一个有用的选择。
Atherectomy-assisted endovascular therapy versus open repair for atherosclerotic common femoral artery disease: The multicenter ARISTON study.
Background: Endarterectomy (open repair) represents the gold-standard for common femoral atherosclerotic disease (CFAD) treatment. However, with developments like atherectomy, endovascular therapy (endovascular revascularization) may offer an alternative option. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endovascular versus open therapy for the CFAD.
Methods: The ARISTON (AtheRectomy-assIsted endovaScular Therapy versus OpeN) study was an 11-center research collaborative in which data from consecutive patients with symptomatic CFAD were analyzed. Retrospective matching was performed for patient-specific characteristics, including age, cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, and lesion-specific variables, including lesion calcification and complexity. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Amputation-free survival (AFS) was a secondary endpoint.
Results: From 2015 to 2022, 826 patients undergoing endovascular (n = 213 [25.8%]) versus open therapy (n = 613 [74.2%]) were analyzed. The total number of procedural complications was higher with open therapy, whereas hospital stay was shorter with endovascular therapy (p < 0.0001 for both). Major adverse cardiac and limb events at 30-day outcomes were, however, not statistically different (p = 0.06). Bail-out stent rates with atherectomy-assisted endovascular therapy were 5.1%. After matching and during 1.72 (0.9-3.3) years of follow up, all-cause mortality, AFS, and CD-TLR were not statistically different in endovascular versus open therapy (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.36-1.29; HR = 1.5, 95% CI 0.59-3.77; and HR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.61-3.49, p = NS for all).
Conclusion: Endovascular and open therapy exhibit comparable outcomes for the treatment of patients with symptomatic CFAD, including similar CD-TLR in patients with claudication and AFS in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, during short-term follow up. Atherectomy-assisted endovascular therapy may therefore provide a useful alternative for patients who are unfit for surgery.
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)