Vol. 40 | No. 1 | January-June 2012 Back

Open Access

Comparison of Drug Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Femoropopliteal Artery Occlusive Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Liberty O. Yaneza, Leah T. Verdillo
Jun 2012 DOI 10.69944/pjc.417b9d1162

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes in patients who have undergone peripheral artery intervention using either drug eluting stents (DES) or bare metal stents (BMS). 

METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized studies that compare DES and BMS in patients with femoropopliteal occlusive artery disease.

RESULTS: Five clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Results showed that using DES yielded a higher arterial patency rate (RR 1.41; 95% CI 1.23-1.61), reduced restenosis rate (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.33-0.63), and had a lesser tendency for repeat revascularization (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.16-0.51) compared with BMS. However, no statistical significance was noted between the two interventions in terms of mortality rate (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.47-1.83) and ankle brachial index score (mean difference of 0.06; 95% CI 0.02-0.09). 

KEY WORDS: Peripheral artery disease, peripheral artery intervention, drug eluting stents, bare metal stents, femoropopliteal occlusive disease 

References
  1. Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Dormandy JA, Nehler MR, Harris KA, Fowkes FG; TASC II Working Group. Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II). J Vasc Surg 2007;45:Suppl S:S5-67. 
  2. Rutherford RB, et al. Recommended standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia: revised version. J Vasc Surg 1997;26:517-38. 
  3. ICAI Study Group. A prospective epidemiological survey of the natural history of chronic critical leg ischemia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1996;11:112–120. 
  4. Criqui M, Langer R, Fronek A, Feigelson H, Klauber M, McCann T,et al. Mortality over a period of 10 years in patients with peripheralarterial disease. N Engl J Med 1992;326:381-6. 
  5. CAPRIE. A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee. Lancet 1996;348:1329-39. 
  6. Ballard JL, Mills JL Sr. Surgical managementof critical limb ischemia. TechVasc Interv Radiol. 2005;8:169 –174. 
  7. Nehler MR, Moneta GL, Edwards JM,Yeager RA, Taylor LM Jr, Porter JM. Surgery for chronic lower extremity ischemia in patients eighty or more years of age: operative results and assessment of postoperative independence. J Vasc Surg 1993;18:618–624. 
  8. Pomposelli FB Jr, Marcaccio EJ, GibbonsGW, et al. Dorsalis pedis arterial bypass: durable limb salvage for foot ischemia in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Vasc Surg 1995;21:375–384. 
  9. Rand T, Basile A, Cejna M, et al. PTA versus carbofilm-coated stents in infrapopliteal arteries: pilot study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2006;29:29-38. 
  10. Bakal CW, Sprayregen S, Scheinbaum K, Cynamon J, Veith FJ. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the infrapopliteal arteries: results in 53 patients. Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:171-174. 
  11. Schillinger M, Sabeti S, Loewe C, Dick P, Amighi J, Mlekusch W,Schlager O, Cejna M, Lammer J, Minar E. Balloon angioplasty versus implantation of nitinol stents in the superficial femoral artery. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1879-1888. 
  12. Romiti M, Albers M, Brochado-Neto FC; Durazzo AES, Pereira CAB,De Luccia N, Durazzo AE, Pereira CA, De Luccia N. Meta analysis of infrapopliteal angioplasty for chronic critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg 2008;47:975-81. 
  13. Kudo T, Chandra FA, Ahn SS. The effectiveness of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for the treatment of critical limb ischemia: a 10-year experience. J Vasc Surg 2005;41:423-35. 
  14. Siablis D, Karnabatidis D, Katsanos GC, Kraniotis P, Diamantopoulos A, Tsolakis J. Sirolimus-eluting versus bare stents after suboptimal infrapopliteal angioplasty for critical limb ischemia: enduring 1-year angiographic and clinical benefit. J Endovasc Ther 2007;14:241-250. 
  15. Bosiers M, Torsello G, Gissler HM, et al. Nitinol stent implantation in long superficial femoral artery lesions: 12-month results of DURABILITY I study. J Endovasc Ther 2009;16:261–269. 
  16. Krankenberg H, Schlu¨ter M, Steinkamp HJ, et al. Nitinol stent implantation versus percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in superficial femoral artery lesions up to 10 cm in length: the femoral artery stenting trial (FAST). Circulation 2007;116:285–292. 
  17. Laird JR, Katzen BT, Scheinert D, et al. 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 2010;3:267– 276. 
  18. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1994;331. 
  19. Grimm J, Muller-Hulsbeck S, Jahnke T, et al. Randomized study to compare PTA alone versus PTA with Palmaz stent placement for femoropopliteal lesions. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001;12:935- 942. 
  20. Duda SH, Bosiers M, Lammer J, et al. Drug-Eluting and Bare Nitinol Stents for the Treatment of Atherosclerotic Lesions in the Superficial Femoral Artery: Long-term Results From the SIROCCO Trial. J ENDOVASC THER 2006;13:701–710. 
  21. Grant AG, White CJ, Collins TJ, Jenkins JS, Reilly JP, and Ramee SR. Infrapopliteal drug eluting stents for chronic limb ischemia. Cath Cardiovasc Interv 2008;71:108-111. 
  22. Siablis D, Karnabatidis D, Katsanos K, et al. Infrapopliteal Application of Sirolimus-eluting versus Bare Metal Stents for Critical Limb Ischemia: Analysis of Long-term Angiographic and Clinical Outcome. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:1141–1150. 
  23. Scheinert D, Ulrich M, Scheinert S, et al. Comparison of sirolimus eluting vs. bare-metal stents for the treatment of infrapopliteal obstructions. Euro Interv 2006;2:169-174. 
  24. Feiring AJ, Wesolowski AA, Lade S. Primary stent-supported angioplasty for treatment of below-knee critical limb ischemia and severe claudication: early and one-year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:2307–2314. 
  25. Falkowski A, Poncyljusz W, Wilk G, and Szczerbo-Trojanowska M. The evaluation of primary stenting of sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in the treatment of atherosclerotic lesionsof crural arteries. Eur Radiol 2009;19:966–974.
  26. Duda SH, Bosiers M, Lammer J, et al. Drug-Eluting and Bare Nitinol Stents for the Treatmentof Atherosclerotic Lesions in the Superficial Femoral Artery: Long-term Results from the SIROCCO Trial. J Endovasc Ther 2006;13:701–710. 
  27. Karnabatidis D, Spiliopoulos S, Diamantopoulos A, et al. Primary Everolimus-Eluting Stenting Versus Balloon Angioplasty With Bailout Bare Metal Stenting of Long Infrapopliteal Lesions for Treatment of Critical Limb Ischemia. J Endovasc Ther 2011;18:1– 12. 
  28. Bosiers M, Scheinert D, Peeters P, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in patients with critical limb ischemia and infrapopliteal arterial occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg 2012;55:390-9. 
  29. Dake MD, Ansel GM, Jaff MR, et al. Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents Show Superiority to Balloon Angioplasty and Bare Metal Stents in Femoropopliteal Disease : Twelve-Month Zilver PTX Randomized Study Results. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:495-504. 
  30. Duda SH, Bosiers M, Lammer J, et al. Sirolimus-Eluting versus Bare Nitinol Stent forObstructive Superficial Femoral Artery Disease:The SIROCCO II Trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:331– 338. 
  31. Rastan A, Tepe G, Krankenberg H, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents for treatment of focal lesions in infrapopliteal arteries: a double-blind, multi-centre, randomized clinical trial. European Heart Journal 2011;32:2274–2281.
License

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which permits use, share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.