CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 69–74 | Cite as

Neointimal Hyperplasia after Silverhawk Atherectomy versus Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) in Femoropopliteal Stent Reobstructions: A Controlled, Randomized Pilot Trial

  • Marianne BrodmannEmail author
  • Peter Rief
  • Harald Froehlich
  • Andreas Dorr
  • Thomas Gary
  • Philipp Eller
  • Franz Hafner
  • Hannes Deutschmann
  • Gerald Seinost
  • Ernst Pilger
Clinical Investigation



Due to intimal hyperplasia instent reobstruction in the femoropopliteal arterial segment is still an unsolved problem. Different techniques have been discussed in case of reintervention to guarantee longlasting patency rate.


We conducted a randomized, controlled, pilot trial comparing Silverhawk atherectomy with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) in patients with a first instent reobstruction in the femoropopliteal arterial segment, to evaluate intima media thickness (IMT) within the treated segment, as a parameter of recurrence of intimal hyperplasia.


In a total 19 patients were included: 9 patients in the atherectomy device and 10 patients in the PTA arm. IMT within the treated segment was statistically significantly elevated in all patients treated with the Silverhawk device versus the patients treated with PTA. The obvious differentiation in elevation of IMT in nonfavor for patients treated with the Silverhawk device started at month 2 (max IMT SH 0.178 mm vs. IMT PTA 0.1 mm, p = 0.001) with a spike at month 5 (max IMT SH 0.206 mm vs. IMT PTA 0.145 mm, p = 0.003) and a decline once again at month 6 (max IMT SH 0.177 mm vs. IMT PTA 0.121 mm, p = 0.02). The values for mean IMT performed the same way.


Although Silverhawk atherectomy provides good results at first sight, in the midterm follow-up of treatment of first instent restenosis it did not perform better than PTA as it showed elevated reoccurrence of intimal media hyperplasia.


Arterial intervention Thrombectomy Stenting Stent graft Drug eluting stents Restenosis Stenosis Peripheral vascular disease 


Conflict of interest

M. Brodmann: Honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Böhringer Ingelheim, Actelion; P. Rief: FWF no conflict of interest; H. Froehlich: Grants pending from FWF; A. Dorr: no conflict of interest; T. Gary: Grants pending, Honoraria Bayer Healthcare; P. Eller: Grants pending, FWF; F. Hafner: no conflict of interest; H. Deutschmann: no conflict of interest; G. Seinost: no conflict of interest; and E. Pilger: Honaria from Bayer Healthcare, Böhringer Ingelheim, Takeda.


  1. 1.
    Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Dormandy JA, Nehler MR, Harris KA, Fowkes FG et al (2007) Inter-society consensus for the management of peripheral arterial disease (TASC II). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 33(Suppl 1):S1–S75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tendera M, Aboyans V, Bartelnik ML, Baumgartner I, Clement D, Collet JP et al (2011) ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral artery diseases: document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries. The task force on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral artery diseases of the European society of cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 32(22):2851–2906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schillinger M, Sabeti S, Dick P, Amighi J, Mlekusch W, Schlager O, Loewe C, Cenja M, Lammer J, Minar E (2007) Sustained benefit at 2 years of primary femoropopliteal stenting compared with balloon angioplasty with optional stenting. Circulation 115:2745–2749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schillinger M, Sabeti S, Dick P, Amighi J, Mlekusch W, Schlager O, Loewe C, Cenja M, Lammer J, Minar E (2006) Balloon angioplasty versus implantation of nitinol stents in the superficial femoral artery. N Engl J Med 354:1879–1888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sabeti S, Mlekusch W, Amighi J, Minar E, Schillinger M (2005) Primary patency of long-segment self-expanding nitinol stents in the femoropopliteal arteries. J Endovasc Ther 12:6–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laird JR, Katzen BT, Scheinert D et al (2010) Nitinol stent implantation versus balloon angioplasty for lesions in the superficial femoral artery and proximal popliteal artery: twelve-month results from the RESILIENT randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 3:267–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wissgott C, Kamusella P, Andresen R (2011) Behandlung von Instent-Reokklusionen der femoropoplitealen Arterien mit einem mechanischem Rotationskatheter. Röfo 183:939–944PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zeller T, Rastan A, Sixt S et al (2006) Long-term results after directional atherectomy of femoropopliteal lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:1573–1578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yeo KK, Mail U, Laird JR (2011) Outcomes following treatment of femoropopliteal in-stent restenosis: a single-center experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 78:604–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tosaka A, Soga Y, Iida O, Ishihara T, Hirano K, Suzuki K et al (2012) Classification and clinical impact of restenosis after femoropopliteal stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:16–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schillinger M, Minar E (2009) Past, present and future of femoropopliteal stenting. J Endovasc Ther 16:1147–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zeller T, Macharzina R, Tepe G (2010) The role of DES in peripheral in-stent restenosis. J Cardiovasc Surg 51:561–565Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dick P, Sabeti S, Mlekusch W et al (2008) Conventional balloon angioplasty versus cutting balloon angioplasty for treatment of femoropopliteal in-stent restenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Radiology 248:297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sillingardi R, Cataldi V, Moratto J et al (2010) Mechanical atherectomy in instent restenosis: preliminary results at the iliac and femoropopliteal arteries with the rotarex System. J Cardiovasc Surg 51:543–550Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheller B, Speck U, Abramjuk C et al (2004) Paclitaxel balloon coating, a novel method for prevention and therapy of restenosis. Circulation 110(7):810–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laird JR, Yeo KK (2012) The treatment of femoropopliteal in-stent restenosis. JACC 59:24–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laird JR, Yeo KK, Rocha-Singh K, Das T, Joye J, Dippel E, Reddy B, Botti C, Jaff MR (2012) Excimer laser with adjunctive balloon angioplasty and the heparin-coated self expanding stent grafts for the treatment of femoropopliteal artery in-stent restenosis: twelve months results from the salvage study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soga Y, Iida O, Hirano K, Suzuki K, Yokoi H, Nobuyoshi M (2012) Restenosis after stent implantation for superficial femoral artery disease in patients treated with cilostazol. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 79:541–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shrikhande G, McKinsey JF (2008) Use and abuse of atherectomy: where should it be used? Semin Vasc Surg 21:204–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garcia LA, Lyden SP (2009) Atherectomy for infrainguinal peripheral artery disease. J Endovasc Ther 16(Suppl II):105–115Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Speck U, Scheller B, Abramjuk C et al (2006) Neointima inhibition: comparison of effectiveness of nonstent-based local drug delivery and a drug-eluting stent in porcine coronary arteries. Radiology 240:411–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cremers B, Biedermann M, Mahnkopf D et al (2009) Comparison of two different paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters in the porcine coronary restenosis model. Clin Res Cardiol 98:325–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cremers B, Speck U, Kaufels N et al (2009) Drug-eluting balloon: very short-term exposure and overlapping. Thromb Haemost 101:201–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rowinsky EK, Donehower RC (1995) Paclitaxel (Taxol). N Engl J Med 332:1004–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Margolis J, McDonald J, Heuser R, Klinke P, Waksman R, Virmani R, Desai N, Hilton D (2007) Systemic nanoparticle paclitaxel (nab-Paclitaxel) for in-stent restenosis I (SNAPIST-I): a first in-human safety and dose-finding study. Clin Cardiol 30:165–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Brodmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Rief
    • 1
  • Harald Froehlich
    • 1
  • Andreas Dorr
    • 1
  • Thomas Gary
    • 1
  • Philipp Eller
    • 1
  • Franz Hafner
    • 1
  • Hannes Deutschmann
    • 2
  • Gerald Seinost
    • 1
  • Ernst Pilger
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of AngiologyMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Division of Interventional RadiologyMedical University GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations