Skip to content

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on DCB vs. POBA in De-novo Femoropopliteal Disease

Drug Or No Drug (DOND): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty (DCB) vs. Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty (POBA) in De-novo Femoropopliteal Disease

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02927574
Acronym
DOND
Enrollment
1400
Registered
2016-10-07
Start date
2016-07-31
Completion date
2017-09-30
Last updated
2020-03-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Peripheral Arterial Disease, Intermittent Claudication

Keywords

drug-coated balloon angioplasty, angioplasty, plain old balloon angioplasty, peripheral arterial disease, intermittent claudication, systematic review, meta-analysis, Paclitaxel

Brief summary

Restenosis is still an issue after endovascular revascularization for femoropopliteal occlusive disease. One approach to reduce the rates of restenosis and reintervention is local application of Paclitaxel with drug-coated balloon angioplasty. The purpose is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials comparing on Drug-Coated Balloon angioplasty (DCB) vs. Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty (POBA) in de-novo femoropopliteal disease.

Detailed description

Peripheral arterial disease is the third leading entity of atherosclerosis. The femoropopliteal segment is affected in most patients. Endovascular revascularisation is one possible treatment option, but high rates of restenosis, especially in complex lesions, are a limiting factor. Bare-metal stents failed to show a long-term superiority in a Cochrane systematic review. Another approach to prevent restenosis is local delivery of an antiproliferative drug (e.g. Paclitaxel) via Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty. New studies did report their results since the publication of earlier meta-analyses. It's time for an up-to-date systematic review. Prior systematic reviews did not address risk of bias nor did they take differences in treatment strategy despite the used balloon catheter into consideration.Some previous reviews did compare results from different points in time, e.g. analysis of 6 months' results together with 24 months' results.

Interventions

DEVICEDCB
DEVICEPOBA

Sponsors

Jena University Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
OTHER
Time perspective
OTHER

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Randomized controlled trials * DCB vs. POBA * focus on de-novo femoropopliteal lesions * registration in a clinical trials registry * available study protocol (either in clinical trial registry or published)

Exclusion criteria

* non-randomized controlled trials * focus on below-the-knee interventions * focus on iliac artery interventions * focus on treatment of critical limb ischemia * focus on treatment of in-stent restenosis * usage of additional devices except for bare-metal stent (e.g. atherectomy)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Freedom from (clinical driven) Target Lesion Revascularisation (FfTLR)12 monthsFreedom from repeated intervention of the index lesion (due to binary restenosis \> 50% and/or recurrent symptoms)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Secondary Patency (SP)12 and 24 monthsfreedom from binary restenosis after 1. single repeated endovascular revascularization or 2. no repeated Intervention \[comment: The metaanalysis compares the endpoints of different trials comparing DCB vs. POBA. The secondary patency is another commonly used efficacy endpoint in those trials; information on this endpoint will be extracted from already published trial data.\]
Late Lumen Loss (LLL)6 and 12 monthsDifference of minimal lumen diameter at follow-up compared to minimal lumen diameter after index procedure
ABI12 and 24 monthsAnkle-Brachial-Index
Primary Patency (PP)12 and 24 monthsfreedom from repeated intervention (FfTLR) and freedom from binary restenosis \> 50% \[comment: The metaanalysis compares the endpoints of different trials comparing DCB vs. POBA. The primary patency is a commonly used efficacy endpoint in those trials; information on this endpoint will be extracted from already published trial data.\]
Functional outcome12 and 24 monthsFunctional result eg. Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) or treadmill test
Quality of Life (QoL)12 and 24 monthsQuality of Life outcome eg. EQ5D
Rutherford-Becker Classification12 and 24 monthsClinical stage of disease according to Rutherford-Becker Classification

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026