Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Stents for Iliac Artery Occlusive Disease: The Randomized ICE Trial

Abstract

ObjectivesAtherosclerosis of iliac arteries is widespread. As inflow vessels, they are of great clinical significance and increasingly being treated by endovascular means. Most commonly, stents are implanted. BackgroundSo far, due to a lack of comparative data, no guideline recommendations on the preferable stent type, balloon-expandable stent (BE) or self-expanding stent (SE), have been issued. MethodsIn this randomized, multicenter study, patients with moderate to severe claudication from common or external iliac artery occlusive disease were assigned 1:1 to either BE or SE. The primary endpoint was binary restenosis at 12 months as determined by duplex ultrasound. Key secondary endpoints were walking impairment, freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR), hemodynamic success, target limb amputation, and all-cause death. ResultsSix hundred sixty patients with 660 lesions were enrolled at 18 German and Swiss sites over a period of 34 months; 24.8% of the patients had diabetes and 57.4% were current smokers. The common iliac artery was affected in 58.9%. One hundred nine (16.5%) lesions were totally occluded and 25.6% heavily calcified. Twelve-month incidence of restenosis was 6.1% after SE implantation and 14.9% after BE implantation (p = 0.006). Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from TLR was 97.2% and 93.6%, respectively (p = 0.042). There was no between-group difference in walking impairment, hemodynamic success, amputation rate, all-cause death, or periprocedural complications. ConclusionsThe treatment of iliac artery occlusive disease with SE as compared with BE resulted in a lower 12-month restenosis rate and a significantly reduced TLR rate. No safety concerns arose in both groups. (Iliac, Common and External [ICE] Artery Stent Trial; NCT01305174)