Objectives This study sought to compare the outcomes of spot stenting versus long stenting after intentional subintimal approach for long femoropopliteal chronic total occlusions (CTO). Background The optimal stenting strategy following the subintimal recanalization of long femoropopliteal chronic total occlusions has not been investigated. Methods A total of 196 limbs in 163 patients, implanted with bare nitinol stents after subintimal approach in long femoropopliteal occlusions (lesion length 25 ± 8 cm), were retrospectively analyzed. The primary patency was compared between spot stenting (n = 129) and long stenting (n = 67). Results Baseline characteristics and immediate procedural results were similar between groups. Adjusted-primary patency (47% vs. 77%, p < 0.001) and adjusted-freedom from target lesion revascularization (52% vs. 84%, p < 0.001) at 2 years were significantly lower in the long stenting group than in the spot stenting group. The incidence of stent fracture, fracture type, and restenosis pattern did not differ between groups. Long stenting was an independent predictor of restenosis (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.0) along with other risk factors such as nonuse of clopidogrel (HR: 3.3) or cilostazol (HR: 2.2), small stent diameter (HR: 0.6), poor run-off (HR: 1.9), and post-procedural ankle-brachial index (HR: 0.1). Compared with spot stenting after adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, long stenting, especially involving the P2 or P3 segment of the popliteal artery, was independently associated with 7.5-fold increases in restenosis risk (p < 0.001). Conclusions The primary patency was significantly higher with spot stenting than with long stenting following subintimal approach for long femoropopliteal chronic total occlusions. The risk of restenosis was especially higher when long stenting was extended to the distal popliteal artery.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This study was supported by the Healthcare Technology R&D Project , Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs , Republic of Korea (no. A085012, A102064, A120478, and HI08C2149), the Korea Health 21 R&D Project , Ministry of Health and Welfare , Republic of Korea (no. A085136), and the Cardiovascular Research Center , Seoul, Republic of Korea. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
© 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine