1-year results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the Heparin-bonded endoluminal bypass to the femoropopliteal bypass
Reijnen MMPJ, van Walraven LA, Fritschy WM, et al. 1-year results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing heparin-bonded endoluminal to femoropopliteal bypass. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2017;10(22):2320-2331.
Abstract
Objective:
This study sought to compare heparin-bonded endografts with femoropopliteal bypass, including quality of life, using general health and disease-specific questionnaires as well as patency rates.
Background:
Endovascular treatment continues to advance and is gaining acceptance as primary treatment for long occlusive or stenotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery. Heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene endografts have been related to outcomes comparable to bypass surgery, but this has not been tested in a randomized fashion.
Methods:
A multicenter randomized-controlled trial was performed comparing femoropopliteal bypass with heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene endografts. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol manner.
Results:
A total of 129 patients were randomized and 125 patients were treated, 63 in the endoluminal and 62 in the surgical group (42 venous, 20 prosthetic). Enrollment was terminated before reaching the predefined target number for patency. Baseline characteristics and anatomical data were similar. Patients were treated for critical limb ischemia in 38.1% and 32.2% in the endoluminal and surgical arms, respectively. Mean lesion length was 23 cm in both groups and lesions were largely TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II D. Hospitalization time and 30-day morbidity were significantly lower in the endoluminal group, without differences in serious adverse events (n = 5 each; surgical: 4 venous and 1 polytetrafluoroethylene bypass). There were no significant differences in Rutherford category between groups at any time point. At 30 days the endoluminal group showed a greater improvement in quality-of-life scores. At 1 year, these differences had largely disappeared and no differences in primary (endoluminal: 64.8%; surgical: 63.6%), assisted primary (endoluminal: 78.1%; surgical: 79.8%), secondary patency (endoluminal: 85.9%; surgical: 83.3%), and target vessel revascularization (endoluminal: 72.1%; surgical: 71.0%) were observed. Limb salvage rate was 100% in both groups.
Conclusions:
Heparin-bonded endoluminal bypass for long segment lesions shows promising results (less morbidity, faster recovery, and improvement in quality of life with indistinguishable patency rates at 1 year) compared with surgical bypass. Long-term results have to be awaited.
Refer to Instructions for Use at eifu.goremedical.com for a complete description of all applicable indications, warnings, precautions and contraindications for the markets where this product is available. RXOnly
INDICATIONS FOR USE IN EUROPE: The GORE® VIABAHN® Endoprosthesis with PROPATEN Bioactive Surface is indicated for the treatment of:
- de novo or restenotic lesions in the iliac arteries
- de novo or restenotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery and proximal popliteal artery
- in-stent restenotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery and proximal popliteal artery
- stenosis or thrombotic occlusion at the venous anastomosis of synthetic arteriovenous (AV) access grafts and in the venous outflow of dialysis access circuits, including the central veins
- popliteal artery aneurysms and isolated visceral artery aneurysms
- traumatic or iatrogenic vessel injuries in arteries that are located in the chest cavity, abdominal cavity, or pelvis (except for aorta, coronary, innominate, carotid, vertebral, and pulmonary arteries)
CONTRAINDICATIONS:
- Non-compliant lesions where full expansion of an angioplasty balloon catheter was not achieved during pre-dilatation, or where lesions cannot be dilated sufficiently to allow passage of the delivery system.
- Do not use the GORE® VIABAHN® Endoprosthesis with PROPATEN Bioactive Surface in patients with known hypersensitivity to heparin, including those patients who have had a previous incident of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT) type II.