Dataset Information

SIroliMus coated angioPlasty versus plain balloon angioplasty in the tREatment of dialySis acceSs dysfunctION (IMPRESSION): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty is the current standard treatment for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis. The mid- and long-term patency with plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) is however far from satisfactory. While paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty has been shown to be superior to PBA, concern over its safety profile has recently arisen after a reported possible increased mortality risk with a meta-analysis of large lower limb studies. An angioplasty balloon with a new type of drug coating, the sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB), has been proven to improve patency in the coronary arteries. However, its effect on AV access has yet to be studied.

Methods/design

This is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of SCB compared to PBA in improving the patency of AVF after angioplasty. A total of 170 patients with mature AVF that requires PTA due to AVF dysfunction will be randomly assigned to treatment with a SCB or PBA at a 1:1 ratio, stratified by location of AVF and followed up for up to 1 year. The inclusion criteria include [1] adult patient aged 21 to 85 years who requires balloon angioplasty for dysfunctional arteriovenous fistula [2]; matured AVF, defined as being in use for at least 1 month prior to the angioplasty; and [3] successful angioplasty of the underlying stenosis with PBA, defined as less than 30% residual stenosis on digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and restoration of thrill in the AVF on clinical examination. The exclusion criteria include thrombosed or partially thrombosed access circuit at the time of treatment, presence of symptomatic or angiographically significant central vein stenosis that requires treatment with more than 30% residual stenosis post angioplasty, and existing stent placement within the AVF circuit. The primary endpoint of the study is access circuit primary patency at 6 months. The secondary endpoints are target lesion primary patency; access circuit-assisted primary patency; access circuit secondary patency at 3, 6, and 12 months; target lesion restenosis rate at 6 months; total number of interventions; complication rate; and cost-effectiveness. The trial is supported by Concept Medical.

Discussion

This study will evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of SCB compared to PBA in the treatment of AVF stenosis in hemodialysis patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04409912 . Registered on 1 June 2020.

SUBMITTER: Pang SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8687634 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveThe majority of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis (HD) do so via an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or graft. Both of these accesses are complicated by dysfunction related to neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) and subsequent stenosis. Percutaneous balloon angioplasty using plain balloons is the first line treatment for clinically-significant stenosis, with excellent initial response rates, however, with poor long-term patency and need for frequent reintervention. Recent research has sought to improve patency rates utilizing antiproliferative drug-coated balloons (DCBs), however, their role in treatment has not yet been fully determined. In part one of this two-part review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the mechanisms of arteriovenous (AV) access stenosis, the evidence behind their treatment with high-quality plain balloon angioplasty techniques, and treatment considerations for specific stenotic lesions.MethodsAn electronic search was performed on PubMed and EMBASE to identify relevant articles from 1980 to 2022. The highest available level of evidence regarding stenosis pathophysiology, angioplasty techniques, and approaches to treating different types of lesions within fistulas and grafts were included as part of this narrative review.Key content and findingsNIH, and subsequent stenoses, develop via a combination of upstream events, causing vascular damage, and downstream events, representing the subsequent biologic response. The large majority of stenotic lesions can be treated utilizing high-pressure balloon angioplasty, with the addition of ultra-high pressure balloon (UHPB) angioplasty for resistant lesions and prolonged angioplasty with progressive balloon upsizing for elastic lesions. Additional treatment considerations must be taken into account when treating specific lesions, including cephalic arch and swing point stenoses in fistulas and graft-vein anastomotic stenoses in grafts, amongst others.ConclusionsHigh-quality plain balloon angioplasty, performed utilizing the available evidence-basis regarding technique and considerations for specific lesion locations, is successful in treating the large majority of AV access stenoses. While initially successful, patency rates remain non-durable. Part two of this review will discuss the evolving role of DCBs, which seek to improve angioplasty outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundEndovascular revascularization has established as the first-line therapy of femoropopliteal artery disease. Paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty proved to be superior to plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) regarding prevention of restenosis and need for recurrent revascularization. Over the past years, paclitaxel was the only active drug to inhibit neointimal proliferation which could be processed to an appropriate balloon coating. The purpose of this study is to assess whether efficacy and safety of sirolimus-coated balloon angioplasty is noninferior to paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty.MethodsThis randomized controlled, single-blinded, multicentre, investigator-initiated noninferiority trial aims to enrol a total of 478 participants with symptomatic femoropopliteal artery disease of Rutherford category 2 to 4 due to de novo stenosis or restenosis. After pre-dilation, participants will be allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either sirolimus- or paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty. Post-dilation with the drug-coated balloon (DCB) used or standard balloon is mandatory in case ≥ 50%, and optional in case of ≥ 30% residual diameter stenosis. Bailout stenting with bare-metal nitinol stents should be conducted in case of flow-limiting dissection. Primary noninferiority endpoints are primary patency and the composite of all-cause mortality, major target limb amputation, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are clinical and hemodynamic improvement, change in health-related quality of life, and safety throughout 60 months.DiscussionAlthough concerns about long-term safety of paclitaxel-coated devices were not confirmed by recent patient-level data analyses, conflicting evidence contributed to a loss of confidence among patients and physicians. Therefore, sirolimus, known for a broader therapeutic range than paclitaxel, may serve as a welcome alternative. This will be justified if noninferiority of sirolimus-coated balloon angioplasty against the current standard of paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty can be demonstrated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04475783 . Registered on 17 July 2020 EUDAMED No. CIV-20-11-035172, DRKS00022452.

Project description:Background and objectiveDrug-coated balloons (DCBs) seek to inhibit restenosis in treated hemodialysis access lesions by delivering an anti-proliferative agent (paclitaxel) into the vessel wall. While DCBs have proven effective in the coronary and peripheral arterial vasculature, the evidence for their use in arteriovenous (AV) access has been less robust. In part two of this review, a comprehensive overview of DCB mechanisms, implementation, and design is provided, followed by an examination of the evidence basis for their use in AV access stenosis.MethodsAn electronic search was performed on PubMed and EMBASE to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCBs and plain balloon angioplasty from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2022 published in English. As part of this narrative review, a review of DCB mechanisms of action, implementation, and design is provided, followed by a review of available RCTs and other studies.Key content and findingsNumerous DCBs have been developed, each with unique properties, although the degree to which these differences impact clinical outcomes is unclear. Target lesion preparation, achieved by pre-dilation, and balloon inflation time have proven important factors in achieving optimal DCB treatment. Numerous RCTs have been performed, but have suffered from significant heterogeneity, and have often reported contrasting clinical results, making it difficult to draw conclusions on how to implement DCBs in daily practice. On the whole, it is likely there is a population of patients who benefit from DCB use, but it is unclear which patients benefit most and what device, technical, and procedural factors lead to optimal outcomes. Importantly, DCBs use appears safe in the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population.ConclusionsDCB implementation has been tempered by the lack of clear signal regarding the benefits of DCB use. As further evidence is obtained, it is possible that a precision-based approach to DCBs may shed light onto which patients will truly benefit from DCBs. Until that time, the evidence reviewed herein may serve to guide interventionalists in their decision making, knowing that DCBs appear safe when used in AV access and may provide some benefit in certain patients.

Project description:ObjectivePrimary nitinol stenting (PNS) and drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty are two of the most common endovascular interventions for femoropopliteal atherosclerotic disease. Although many prospective randomized controlled trials have compared PNS or DCB with plain balloon angioplasty (POBA), no studies have directly compared PNS against DCB therapy. The purpose of this network meta-analysis is to determine whether there is a significant difference in outcomes between PNS and DCB.MethodsThe primary outcome measure was binary restenosis, the secondary outcome measures were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and change in the ankle-brachial index (ABI). Outcomes were evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months. A literature review identified all randomized controlled trials published before March 2020 that compared DCB with POBA or PNS with POBA in the treatment of native atherosclerotic lesions of the femoropopliteal artery. Studies were excluded if they contained in-stent stenosis or tibial artery disease that could not be delineated out in a subgroup analysis. Network meta-analysis was performed using the network and mvmeta commands in STATA 14.ResultsTwenty-seven publications covering 19 trials were identified; 8 trials compared PNS with POBA and 11 trials compared DCB with POBA. The odds of freedom from binary restenosis for patients treated with DCB compared with PNS at 6 months was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-2.22), at 12 months was 1.67 (95% CI, 1.04-2.68), and at 24 months was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.78-2.37). The odds of freedom from TLR for patients treated with DCB compared with PNS at 6 months was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.12-3.80), at 12 months was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.04-3.45), and at 24 months was 1.68 (95% CI, 0.82-3.44). The mean increase in ABI for patients treated with PNS compared with DCB at 6 months was 0.06 higher (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.15), at 12 months was 0.05 higher (95% CI, 0.00-0.09), and at 24 months was 0.07 higher (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.14).ConclusionsBoth DCB and PNS demonstrated a lower rate of binary restenosis compared with POBA at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month timepoints. When comparing DCB with PNS through network meta-analysis, DCB had a statistically lower rate of a binary restenosis and TLR at the 12-month timepoint. This network meta-analysis demonstrates that both DCB and PNS are superior to POBA, and that PNS is a satisfactory substitute for DCB when paclitaxel is not desirable.

Project description:IntroductionPatients with end-stage renal disease may require arteriovenous (AV) access in the form of arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs) or arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) for haemodialysis. AV access dysfunction requires intervention such as plain balloon angioplasty or covered stents to regain patency.AimTo systematically review and meta-analyse the patency outcomes of covered stents in failing haemodialysis AV access, compared with balloon angioplasty.MethodsThe review was first registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018069955) before data collection. We searched six electronic databases to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up until August 2020, without language restriction. Two reviewers assessed the suitability and quality of studies for inclusion using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model.ResultsWe included seven studies including 1147 patients in the systematic review, of which 867 had AVGs and 280 had AVFs. One study was an ongoing RCT. In the meta-analyses, we assessed patients with failing AVGs only. Overall risk of bias was moderate. Covered stents were associated with lower loss of patency versus angioplasty alone at 6, 12 and 24 months (OR 4.48, 95% CI 1.98 to 10.14, p<0.001; OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.74 to 9.54, p=0.001; OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.29, p=0.01, respectively). Covered stents afforded superior access circuit primary patency compared with angioplasty alone at 6 and 12 months (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.80, p<0.001; OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.41, p=0.02, respectively). This was not significant at 24 months. There was no significant difference in loss of secondary patency between groups at 12 or 24 months (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.23, p=0.25; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.154, p=0.34, respectively).ConclusionOur results support use of covered stents over angioplasty alone, at 6, 12 and 24 months in failing AVGs. Further clinical trials are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous studies have reported favorable outcomes using drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for treatment of symptomatic peripheral artery disease of the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. However, the treatment effect compared with an uncoated balloon has differed greatly among the randomized trials, with better outcomes observed with higher-dose DCBs. This European trial was designed to assess the safety and effectiveness of a next-generation low-dose (2-µg/mm2 surface dose of paclitaxel) DCB.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial. Patients were randomized (3:1) to treatment with a low-dose DCB or an uncoated percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloon. The primary safety end point was a composite of freedom from device- and procedure-related death through 30 days after the procedure and freedom from target limb major amputation and clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 12 months after the procedure. The primary effectiveness end point was primary patency at 12 months.ResultsPatients were randomized to treatment with a DCB (222 patients, 254 lesions) or uncoated PTA balloon (72 patients, 79 lesions) after successful predilatation. Mean lesion length was 7.2 and 7.1 cm, and 19.2% and 19.0% of lesions represented total occlusions, respectively. The primary safety end point was met, and superiority was demonstrated; freedom from a primary safety event was 94.1% (193 of 205) with DCB and 83.3% (50 of 60) with PTA, for a difference of 10.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-23.0%). The primary effectiveness end point was met, and superiority of DCB over PTA was achieved (83.9% [188 of 224] versus 60.6% [40 of 66]; P<0.001). Outcomes with DCB were also superior to PTA per the Kaplan-Meier estimate for primary patency (89.0% versus 65.0% at 365 days; log-rank P<0.001) and for rates of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (5.9% versus 16.7%; P=0.014).ConclusionsSuperiority with a low-dose DCB for femoropopliteal interventions was demonstrated over PTA for both the safety and effectiveness end points.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01858363.