Outcomes of endovascular intervention for atherosclerotic lesions confined to the popliteal artery

Abstract

ObjectiveMost surgeons employ an endovascular-first approach to the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD), but controversy remains regarding the ideal interventions for the management of isolated popliteal artery disease (IPAD). Indeed, there are a paucity of data that compare outcomes of popliteal stents vs other peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes of PVIs in IPAD. MethodsThe Vascular Study Group of New England database was queried for all IPAD PVIs performed for atherosclerotic occlusive disease from 2010 to 2021. Those with at least 1 year of follow-up data available were included for analysis. The primary endpoint was 1-year freedom from a composite target lesion (TL) treatment failure that included restenosis >50% on duplex, reintervention, or ipsilateral major amputation. ResultsWe included 689 procedures performed on 634 patients. Of these, 250 (36.3%) were treated with plain balloons (POBA), 215 (31.2%) had stents, 170 (24.7%) had special balloons (drug-coated, cutting, or lithotripsy), and 54 (7.8%) atherectomies were performed. Stent placement was associated with lower freedom from TL treatment failure (72.6%) than special balloon (81.2%; P = .048) and atherectomy (88.9%; P = .012), but not POBA (76.8%; P = .293). On multivariable logistic regression, stents (odds ratio, 0.637; P = .021) and preoperative P2Y12 inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 0.683; P = .048) were both associated with lower freedom from intervention failure. ConclusionsPopliteal stent placement is associated with a higher rate of TL treatment failure at 1 year when compared with other PVIs including special balloon angioplasty and atherectomy, but not POBA, and should therefore be avoided in favor of special balloons or atherectomy whenever feasible.