Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloons vs Bare-Metal Stents in Patients With Femoropopliteal Arterial Disease

BACKGROUND Endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal artery disease has shifted toward drug-coated balloons (DCB). However, limited data are available regarding the safety and efficacy of DCB vs bare-metal stents (BMS).OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare DCB vs BMS outcomes in a propensity-adjusted, pooled analysis of 4 prospective, multicenter trials.METHODS Patient-level data were pooled from 4 prospective, multicenter studies: the IN.PACT SFA I/II and IN.PACT SFA Japan randomized controlled DCB trials and the Complete SE and DURABILITY II single-arm BMS studies. Outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Clinical endpoints were 12-month primary patency, freedom from 36-month clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and cumulative 36-month major adverse events (MAE).RESULTS The primary analysis included 771 patients (288 DCB, 483 BMS). IPTW-adjusted demographic, baseline lesion, and procedural characteristics were matched between groups. The adjusted mean lesion length was 8.1 +/- 4.7 cm DCB and 7.9 +/- 4.5 cm BMS. The IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month primary patency (90.4% DCB, 80.9% BMS, P = 0.007), freedom from 36-month clinically driven target lesion revascularization (85.6% DCB, 73.7% BMS, P = 0.001), and cumulative incidence of 36-month MAE (25.3% DCB, 38.8% BMS, P < 0.001) favored DCB. There were no statistically significant differences observed in all-cause mortality, target limb major amputation, or thrombosis through 36 months. CONCLUSIONS In a patient-level, IPTW-adjusted pooled analysis of prospective, multicenter pivotal studies, DCB demonstrated significantly higher patency, lower revascularization and MAE rates, and no statistically significant differences in mortality, amputation, or thrombosis vs BMS. This analysis supports DCB use vs BMS in moderately complex femoropopliteal lesions amenable to both treatments. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2023;81:237-249) (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).