Retrospective Multicenter Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. CONTROL and MISAGO Stents in Treatment of Femoropopliteal Lesions

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Kenji Suzuki ; MD^a ; ^{k-y.suzuki@nifty.com" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Mitsuyoshi Takahara ; MD^b ; Yoshiaki Shintani ; MD^c ; Akiko Tanaka ; MD^d ; Yoshimitsu Soga ; MD^e ; Terutoshi Yamaoka ; MD^f ; Atsushi Tosaka ; MD^g ; Shinya Sasaki ; MD^h ; Daizo Kawasaki ; MDⁱ ; Taketsugu Tsuchiya ; MD^j ; Amane Kozuki ; MD^k ; Osamu Iida ; MD^l
• 关键词：CI ; confidence interval ; TASC ; Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society of Consensus ; TLR ; target lesion revascularization
• 刊名：Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：November 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：27
• 期：11
• 页码：1642-1649
• 全文大小：1494 K

文摘

To compare primary patency between MISAGO (Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and S.M.A.R.T. CONTROL (Cordis Corporation, Miami Lakes, Florida), second-generation and first-generation nitinol stents, in femoropopliteal lesions.

Materials and Methods

This multicenter, retrospective study included 240 cases with MISAGO stent implantation and 1,265 cases with S.M.A.R.T. stent implantation. The S.M.A.R.T. group had more Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society of Consensus (TASC) II class C/D lesions (53% vs 41%, P = .001) and smaller reference vessel diameter (RVD) (5.3 mm ± 0.9 vs 5.5 mm ± 0.9, P < .001).

Results

Kaplan-Meier estimates of 2-year primary patency after S.M.A.R.T. and MISAGO stent implantation were 67% and 55% (P = .007). Interaction analysis revealed that TASC II classification and RVD had a significant influence on the association of MISAGO versus S.M.A.R.T. stents with the outcome. The study population was stratified according to TASC II classification and RVD, and MISAGO and S.M.A.R.T. stents were compared after propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in 2-year patency between the 2 stents in the subgroup with TASC II class A/B and RVD ≥ 5 mm (S.M.A.R.T. 82% ± 4 vs MISAGO 74% ± 5, P = .480). MISAGO stents had lower primary patency than S.M.A.R.T. stents in cases with TASC II class C/D or RVD < 5 mm (S.M.A.R.T. 62% ± 6 vs MISAGO 25% ± 6, P = .015).

Conclusions

S.M.A.R.T. and MISAGO stents had similar patency in simple lesions, but MISAGO stents had lower patency than S.M.A.R.T. stents in more complex lesions.