Objective Randomized trials and retrospective data suggest that covered balloon-expandable (CBE) stents have better short-term patency compared with balloon-expandable bare-metal stents (BMSs) in the treatment of iliac artery disease. This study evaluated midterm outcomes of BMSs vs CBE stents placed in the common iliac artery (CIA) for aortoiliac occlusive disease. Methods All endovascular interventions for symptomatic peripheral arterial occlusive disease performed at a single institution from 2006 to 2012 were reviewed. Patients undergoing stent placement in the CIA segment were included in the analysis. Demographic data, TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) classification, stent type, patency, and limb reinterventions were compared. Results For treatment of de novo distal aorta or CIA stenosis, 254 procedures were performed in 162 patients. BMSs were used in 190 arteries; CBE stents were used in 64 arteries. There was no difference in age, gender, or TASC classification between the two groups. Mean follow-up was 22 ± 16 months. Primary patency, assisted patency, and secondary patency were significantly better in the BMS group. CIAs treated with covered stents were more likely at 1 year or longer to require repeated intervention (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-5.3; P =.009). TASC classification did not predict need for reintervention in either group. Multivariate analysis revealed dual antiplatelet therapy to be the only other factor to affect patency during long-term follow-up. Conclusions In this study, BMSs had significantly better patency compared with CBE stents for treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease. A randomized trial comparing patency as well as restenosis rates with long-term follow-up is needed to determine if there is any benefit from use of covered stents in the aortoiliac segment.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine