Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 25–32 | Cite as

Sustained Benefit at 2 Years for Covered Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Long SFA Lesions: The VIASTAR Trial

  • Johannes Lammer
  • Thomas Zeller
  • Klaus A. Hausegger
  • Philipp J. Schaefer
  • Manfred Gschwendtner
  • Stefan Mueller-Huelsbeck
  • Thomas Rand
  • Martin Funovics
  • Florian Wolf
  • Aljoscha Rastan
  • Michael Gschwandtner
  • Stefan Puchner
  • Ulrich Beschorner
  • Robin Ristl
  • Maria Schoder
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

The hypothesis that covered stents are superior to bare-metal stents (BMS) in long femoropopliteal artery disease was tested. The one-year results of the VIASTAR trial revealed a patency benefit of covered stents in the treatment-per-protocol (TPP) analysis only.

Methods

A prospective, randomized, single-blind, multicenter study evaluated 141 patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) after treatment with heparin-bonded covered stents (VIABAHN® Endoprosthesis) or BMS. Clinical outcomes and patency rates were assessed at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. Mean lesion length was 19.0 ± 6.3 cm in the VIABAHN® versus 17.3 ± 6.6 cm in the BMS group.

Results

The 24-month primary patency rates in the VIABAHN® and BMS group were: intention-to-treat 63.1 (95 % CI 0.52–0.76) versus 41.2 % (95 % CI 0.29–0.57; log rank p = 0.04) and TPP 69.4 (95 % CI 0.58–0.83) versus 40.0 % (95 % CI 0.28–0.56; log rank p = 0.004). Freedom from target-lesion-revascularization (TLR) was 79.4 (95 % CI 0.70–0.90) versus 73.0 % (95 % CI 0.63–0.85) for VIABAHN® versus BMS (log rank p = 0.37). For the TPP group in lesions ≥20 cm, the 24-month patency rates were 65.2 (95 % CI 0.50–0.85) versus 26.7 % (95 % CI 0.12–0.59; log rank p = 0.004) for VIABAHN® versus BMS, and freedom from TLR was 80.0 (95 % CI 0.68–0.94) versus 61.9 % (95 % CI 0.44–0.87; log rank p = 0.13). The ankle brachial index was 0.89 ± 0.18 versus 0.91 ± 0.17 (p = 0.76) at 24-month in the VIABAHN® versus the BMS group, respectively.

Conclusion

At 24-month, this trial in PAD patients with long femoropopliteal lesions demonstrated a significantly improved primary patency rate for heparin-bonded covered stents compared to BMS, however, without a significant impact on clinical outcomes and TLR rate (Reg. Nr. ISRCTN48164244).

Keywords

Peripheral arterial disease Femoropopliteal Stent Stentgraft 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Mrs. Johanna Moyses, research coordinator at Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Medical University Vienna, for the data management; WL Gore for the grant for CorLab review of the CDUS studies; the Medical University Vienna for monitoring by the Clinical Coordination Center KKS.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Lammer reports grant to the institution for CDUS CorLab analysis from WL Gore, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Gore, outside the submitted work; Dr. Zeller reports grants and personal fees from Gore, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Schaefer reports personal fees from Gore, Jotec, and Covidien outside the submitted work; Dr. Funovics reports personal fees from Gore Medical outside the submitted work; Dr. Hausegger, Dr. Gschwendtner, Dr. Mueller-Huelsbeck, Dr. Rand, Dr. Wolf, Dr. Rastan, Dr. Gschwandtner, Dr. Puchner, Dr. Beschorner, Dr. Ristl, and Dr. Schoder have nothing to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Beschorner U, Sixt S, Schwarzwälder U, Rastan A, Mayer C, Noory E et al (2009) Recanalization of chronic occlusions of the superficial femoral artery using the Outback™ re-entry catheter: a single centre experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 74:934–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doomernik DE, Golchehr B, Lensvelt MM, Reijnen MM (2012) The role of superficial femoral artery endoluminal bypass in long de novo lesions and in-stent restenosis. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 53:447–457Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kougias P, Chen A, Cagiannos C, Bechara CF, Huynh TT, Lin PH (2009) Subintimal placement of covered stent versus subintimal balloon angioplasty in the treatment of long-segment superficial femoral artery occlusion. Am J Surg 198:645–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dick P, Wallner H, Sabeti S, Loewe C, Mlekusch W, Lammer J et al (2009) Balloon angioplasty versus stenting with nitinol stents in intermediate length superficial femoral artery lesions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 74:1090–1095CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chalmers N, Walker PT, Belli AM, Thorpe AP, Sidhu PS, Robinson G et al (2013) Randomized trial of the SMART stent versus balloon angioplasty in long superficial femoral artery lesions: the SUPER study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36:353–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bosiers M, Deloose K, Callaert J, Moreels N, Keirse K, Verbist J et al (2011) Results of the Protégé EverFlex 200-mm-long nitinol stent in TASC C and D femoropopliteal lesions. J Vasc Surg 54:1042–1050CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu H, Zhang H, He Y, Jin W, Tian L, Chen X et al (2011) Endovascular nitinol stenting for long occlusive disease of the superficial femoral artery in critical limb ischemia: a single-center, mid-term result. Ann Vasc Surg 25:210–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siablis D, Diamantopoulos A, Katsanos K, Spiliopoulos S, Kagadis GC, Papadoulas S et al (2012) Subintimal angioplasty of long chronic total femoropopliteal occlusions: long-term outcomes, predictors of angiographic restenosis, and role of stenting. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35:483–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davaine JM, Azéma L, Guyomarch B, Chaillou P, Costargent A, Patra P et al (2012) One-year clinical outcome after primary stenting for Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) C and D femoropopliteal lesions (the STELLA “STEnting Long de L’Artère fémorale superficielle” cohort). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 44:432–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Armstrong EJ, Saeed H, Alvandi B, Singh S, Singh GD, Yeo KK et al (2014) Nitinol self-expanding stents vs. balloon angioplasty for very long femoropopliteal lesions. J Endovasc Ther 21:34–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scheinert D, Scheinert S, Sax J, Piorkowski C, Bräunlich S, Ulrich M et al (2005) Prevalence and clinical impact of stent fractures after femoropopliteal stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:312–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lammer J, Zeller T, Hausegger KA, Schaefer PJ, Gschwendtner M, Mueller-Huelsbeck S et al (2013) Heparin-bonded covered stents versus bare-metal stents for complex femoropopliteal artery lesions: the randomized VIASTAR trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 62:1320–1327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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–S75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kinlay S (2013) Outcomes for clinical studies assessing drug and revascularization therapies for claudication and critical limb ischemia in peripheral artery disease. Circulation 127:1241–1250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laird JR, Katzen BT, Scheinert D, Lammer J, Carpenter J, Buchbinder M et al (2010) RESILIENT investigators. 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 3:267–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bosiers M, Torsello G, Gissler HM, Ruef J, Müller-Hülsbeck S, Jahnke T et al (2009) Nitinol stent implantation in long superficial femoral artery lesions: 12-month results of the DURABILITY I study. J Endovasc Ther 16:261–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sakamoto Y, Hirano K, Iida O, Soga Y, Suzuki K, Muramatsu T et al (2011) Long-term results of the S.M.A.R.T. Control(TM) stent for superficial femoral artery lesions, J-SMART registry. Circ J 75:939–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saxon RR, Chervu A, Jones PA, Bajwa TK, Gable DR, Soukas PA et al (2013) Heparin-bonded, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene-lined stent graft in the treatment of femoropopliteal artery disease: 1-year results of the VIPER trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:165–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McQuade K, Gable D, Pearl G, Theune B, Black S (2010) Four-year randomized prospective comparison of percutaneous ePTFE/nitinol self-expanding stent graft versus prosthetic femoral-popliteal bypass in the treatment of superficial femoral artery occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg 52:584–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuhan G, Abisi S, Braithwaite BD, MacSweeney ST, Whitaker SC, Habib SB et al (2012) Early results with the use of heparin-bonded stent graft to rescue failed angioplasty of chronic femoropopliteal occlusive lesions: TASC D lesions have a poor outcome. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35:1023–1028CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lepäntalo M, Laurila K, Roth WD, Rossi P, Lavonen J, Mäkinen K et al (2009) PTFE bypass or thrupass for superficial femoral artery occlusion? A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 37:578–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dake MD, Scheinert D, Tepe G, Tessarek J, Fanelli F, Bosiers M et al (2011) Nitinol stents with polymer-free paclitaxel coating for lesions in the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries above the knee: twelve-month safety and effectiveness results from the Zilver PTX single-arm clinical study. J Endovasc Ther 18:613–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dake MD, Ansel GM, Jaff MR, Ohki T, Saxon RR, Smouse HB et al (2013) Sustained safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stents for femoropopliteal lesions: 2-year follow-up from the Zilver PTX randomized and single-arm clinical studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:2417–2427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fanelli F, Di Primo M, Boatta E, Johnston K, Sapoval M et al (2013) Drug-eluting nitinol stent treatment of the superficial femoral artery and above-the-knee popliteal artery (the Zilver PTX single-arm clinical study): a comparison between diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36:1232–1240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Lammer
    • 1
  • Thomas Zeller
    • 2
  • Klaus A. Hausegger
    • 3
  • Philipp J. Schaefer
    • 4
  • Manfred Gschwendtner
    • 5
  • Stefan Mueller-Huelsbeck
    • 6
  • Thomas Rand
    • 7
  • Martin Funovics
    • 1
  • Florian Wolf
    • 1
  • Aljoscha Rastan
    • 2
  • Michael Gschwandtner
    • 8
  • Stefan Puchner
    • 1
  • Ulrich Beschorner
    • 2
  • Robin Ristl
    • 9
  • Maria Schoder
    • 1
  1. 1.The Department of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided TherapyMedical University ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of AngiologyUniversitaets-Herzzentrum Freiburg-Bad KrozingenBad KrozingenGermany
  3. 3.The Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyKlinikum KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  4. 4.The Department of RadiologyUniversity Clinics Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany
  5. 5.The Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyElisabethinen HospitalLinzAustria
  6. 6.The Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyDiakonissen HospitalFlensburgGermany
  7. 7.The Department of RadiologyHietzing HospitalViennaAustria
  8. 8.The Department of AngiologyMedical University ViennaViennaAustria
  9. 9.The Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent SystemsMedical University ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations