Advertisement

The Role of Drug-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of Native Below-the-Knee Arteries

  • Roberto Nerla
  • Fausto Castriota
  • Alberto Cremonesi
  • Antonio Micari
Chapter

Abstract

The use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) has provided a relevant change in peripheral interventions. The opportunity of locally delivering paclitaxel into the arterial wall without the need of a chronically implanted delivery system has got undeniable advantages for femoropopliteal procedures: the risk of stent fracture and consequent restenosis are avoided, with a patency rate that was shown to be to be much better than the one observed with plain balloons. Notably, the clinical value of DCBs is supported by robust preclinical evidence regarding safety and efficacy including multiple randomized clinical trials in the superficial femoral artery (SFA) and proximal popliteal artery territory. On the contrary, there is still not a sufficient evidence about the role of DCBs in below-the-knee (BTK) interventions for treatment of critical limb ischemia (CLI). While in the femoropopliteal region, results of endovascular therapy depend on lesion length, grade of calcification, and quality of outflow, in BTK vessels additional issues like tissue damage (CLI patients), angiosomal perfusion, ongoing infection as well as comorbidities such as diabetes, and dependency on hemodialysis are also relevant. Of note, all studies evaluating the benefits of endovascular treatment on CLI have a great limitation related to the non-standardized wound therapy.

References

  1. 1.
    Fanelli F, Cannavale A, Boatta E, et al. Lower limb multilevel treatment with drug-eluting balloons: 6-month results from the DEBELLUM randomized trial. J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19:571–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liistro F, Porto I, Angioli P, et al. Drug-eluting balloon in peripheral intervention for below the knee angioplasty evaluation (DEBATE-BTK): a randomized trial in diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia. Circulation. 2013;128:615–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zeller T, Baumgartner I, Scheinert D, et al. Drug-eluting balloon versus standard balloon angioplasty for infrapopliteal arterial revascularization in critical limb ischemia: 12-month results from the IN.PACT DEEP randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1568–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zeller T, Beschorner U, Pilger E, et al. Paclitaxel-coated balloon in infrapopliteal arteries: 12-month results from the BIOLUX P-II randomized trial (BIOTRONIK’S first in man study of the Passeo-18 LUX drug releasing PTA balloon catheter vs. the uncoated Passeo-18 PTA balloon catheter in subjects requiring revascularization of infrapopliteal arteries). JAC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1614–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmidt A, Piorkowski M, Werner M, et al. First experience with drug-eluting balloons in infrapopliteal arteries: restenosis rate and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1105–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steiner S. German single center experience with Lutonix DCB in BTK. LINC 2015, Leipzig, Germany. http://linc2015.cloudcontrolled.com/media/15w_1_1454__S.%20Steiner.pdf.
  7. 7.
    Micari A, Dalla Paola L, Nucifora G, Vadalà G, Sbarzaglia P, D’Alessandro G, Grattoni C, Oshoala K, Nerla R, Carone A, Roscitano G, Castriota F, Cremonesi A. Results of Lutonix drug-coated balloons angioplasty in below the knee arteries in critical limb ischemia patients. Ital J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;23:1–4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jens S, Conijn AP, Koelemay MJW, Bipat S, Reekers JA. Randomized trials for endovascular treatment of Infrainguinal arterial disease: systematic review and meta-analysis (part 2: below the knee). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47:536–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Speck U, Cremers B, Kelsch B, Biedermann M, Clever YP, Schaffner S, Mahnkopf D, Hanisch U, Böhm M, Scheller B. Do pharmacokinetics explain persistent restenosis inhibition by a single dose of paclitaxel? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:392–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yeh TK, Lu Z, Wientjes MG, Au JL-S. Formulating paclitaxel in nanoparticles alters its disposition. Pharm Res. 2005;22:867–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Radke PW, Joner M, Joost A, Byrne RA, Hartwig S, Bayer G, Steigerwald K, Wittchow E. Vascular effects of paclitaxel following drug-eluting balloon angioplasty in a porcine coronary model: the importance of excipients. EuroIntervention. 2011;7:730–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scheller B, Speck U, Abramjuk C, Bernhardt U, Böhm M, Nickenig G. Paclitaxel balloon coating, a novel method for prevention and therapy of restenosis. Circulation. 2004;110:810–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stampfl U, Radeleff B, Sommer C, Stampfl S, Lopez-Benitez R, Thierjung H, Kurz P, Berger I, Richter GM. Paclitaxel-induced arterial wall toxicity and inflammation: part 2—long-term tissue response in a minipig model. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20:1608–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levin AD, Vukmirovic N, Hwang C-W, Edelman ER. Specific binding to intracellular proteins determines arterial transport properties for rapamycin and paclitaxel. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:9463–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Balakrishnan B, Dooley JF, Kopia G, Edelman ER. Intravascular drug release kinetics dictate arterial drug deposition, retention, and distribution. J Control Release. 2007;123:100–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baumann F, Fust J, Engelberger RP, Hügel U, Do DD, Willenberg T, Baumgartner I, Diehm N. Early recoil after balloon angioplasty of tibial artery obstructions in patients with critical limb ischemia. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21:44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Nerla
    • 1
  • Fausto Castriota
    • 1
  • Alberto Cremonesi
    • 1
  • Antonio Micari
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiovascular Department, Humanitas GavazzeniBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations