Drug-Coated Versus Plain Balloon Angioplasty In Arteriovenous Fistulas : A Randomized, Controlled Study With 1-Year Follow-Up (The Drecorest Ii-Study)

Background and Aims: Stenosis due to intimal hyperplasia and restenosis after initially successful percutaneous angioplasty are common reasons for failing arteriovenous fistulas. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of drug-coated balloons in the treatment of arteriovenous fistula stenosis. Design: Single-center, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. Block randomized by sealed envelope 1:1. Materials and Methods: A total of 39 patients with primary or recurrent stenosis in a failing native arteriovenous fistulas were randomized to drug-coated balloon (n=19) or standard balloon angioplasty (n=20). Follow-up was 1year. Primary outcome measure was target lesion revascularization. Results: In all, 36 stenoses were analyzed; three patients were excluded due to technical failure after randomization. A total of 88.9% (16/18) in the drug-coated balloon group was revascularized or occluded within 1year, compared to 22.2% (4/18) of the stenoses in the balloon angioplasty group (relative risk for drug-coated balloon 7.09). Mean time-to- target lesion revascularization was 110 and 193days after the drug-coated balloon and balloon angioplasty, respectively (p=0.06). Conclusions: With 1-year follow-up, the target lesion revascularization-free survival after drug-coated balloon-treatment was clearly worse. The reason for this remains unknown, but it may be due to differences in the biological response to paclitaxel in the venous arteriovenous fistula-wall compared to its antiproliferative effect in the arterial wall after drug-coated balloon treatment of atherosclerotic occlusive lesions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03036241Peer reviewe

Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundStents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy.MethodsThe International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.FindingsThe trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4·0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3·2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·28, 95% CI 0·77–2·11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8·5% in the stenting group compared with 5·2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1·69, 1·16–2·45, p=0·006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1·92, 1·27–2·89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2·76, 1·16–6·56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0·0197).InterpretationCompletion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union