Single versus dual antiplatelet therapy following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention for chronic limb threatening ischaemia:retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesAntiplatelet therapy following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention lacks high quality evidence to guide practice. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of three months of dual antiplatelet therapy on amputation-free survival following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia.MethodsA retrospective review of symptomatic patients undergoing primary peripheral arterial endovascular intervention over a seven-year period was performed. The primary outcome measure was amputation-free survival. A sample size calculation based on previous cohort studies suggested that 629 limbs would be required to show a difference between single and dual therapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate logistic regression analysis of recorded baseline characteristics was performed to determine predictors of amputation-free survival. Dual antiplatelet therapy was routinely given for 3 months.Results754 limbs were treated with primary angioplasty and/or stenting over a 7-year period, 508 of these for chronic limb threatening ischemia. There was no difference in unadjusted amputation-free survival between patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia taking single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy (69% vs. 74% respectively Log rank Chi2 = 0.1, p = .72). After adjusting for confounders, at 1 year there was also no significant difference in amputation-free survival between patients taking single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy [OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.2, p = .3]. There was no difference in rates of major bleeding between single and dual antiplatelet therapy.ConclusionsThere was no clear evidence of reduced amputation-free survival in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia undergoing peripheral arterial endovascular intervention being treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months. This is at odds with other retrospective case series and highlights the limitations in basing clinical practice on such data. There is a need for an adequately powered, independent randomised trial to definitively answer the question

Single versus dual antiplatelet therapy following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention for chronic limb threatening ischaemia: retrospective cohort study.

Objectives Antiplatelet therapy following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention lacks high quality evidence to guide practice. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of three months of dual antiplatelet therapy on amputation-free survival following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia. Methods A retrospective review of symptomatic patients undergoing primary peripheral arterial endovascular intervention over a seven-year period was performed. The primary outcome measure was amputation-free survival. A sample size calculation based on previous cohort studies suggested that 629 limbs would be required to show a difference between single and dual therapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate logistic regression analysis of recorded baseline characteristics was performed to determine predictors of amputation-free survival. Dual antiplatelet therapy was routinely given for 3 months. Results 754 limbs were treated with primary angioplasty and/or stenting over a 7-year period, 508 of these for chronic limb threatening ischemia. There was no difference in unadjusted amputation-free survival between patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia taking single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy (69% vs. 74% respectively Log rank Chi2 = 0.1, p = .72). After adjusting for confounders, at 1 year there was also no significant difference in amputation-free survival between patients taking single vs. dual antiplatelet therapy [OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5–1.2, p = .3]. There was no difference in rates of major bleeding between single and dual antiplatelet therapy. Conclusions There was no clear evidence of reduced amputation-free survival in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia undergoing peripheral arterial endovascular intervention being treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months. This is at odds with other retrospective case series and highlights the limitations in basing clinical practice on such data. There is a need for an adequately powered, independent randomised trial to definitively answer the question

Editor's choice - systematic review and narrative synthesis of randomised controlled trials supporting implantable devices for vascular and endovascular procedures.

Objective To identify implantable devices currently used for vascular and endovascular procedures, to ascertain how many have randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence available, and to assess the quality of that evidence. Data Sources MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO, clinical trial registries, and Cochrane databases. Review Methods A list of current devices used in both vascular and endovascular procedures was generated by searching conference proceedings, manufacturer catalogues, and websites. MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO, clinical trial registries, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception up to June 2020. The primary outcome was the availability of RCTs to support the use of a vascular implantable device. RCTs were then quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results A total of 116 current vascular implantable devices were identified. The systematic literature review identified 165 RCTs. Eighty-three of the RCTs (50.3%) applied to 33 of the 116 (28.4%) current implantable devices. When grouped by device type, eight of the 13 types (62%) had at least one RCT performed. There was a high risk of bias across the majority of the RCTs, with only nine (5.4%) deemed to be at low risk of bias. Only 22 (13.3%) RCTs had a clear safety outcome. Conclusion Sixty-two per cent of implantable device types for use in vascular and endovascular interventions had at least one RCT available to show equivalence to previous devices or safety. RCTs were generally of low quality and are decreasing in frequency with time. With medical implantable device failure being increasingly recognised as causing significant harm to patients worldwide, there is a clear need for a more robust implantable device regulation and approval systems