Skip to content

Comparison of Supera and Absolute Pro stent systems for femoro-popliteal lesions; a feasibility study

Comparison of Supera and Absolute Pro stent systems for femoro-popliteal lesions; a feasibility study - SAP feasability study

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
NL-OMON
Registry ID
NL-OMON42369
Enrollment
40
Registered
2015-11-05
Start date
2015-11-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2024-04-23

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

Conditions

intermittent claudication peripheral arterial disease

Interventions

Randomisation between Supera and Absolute Pro stenting

Sponsors

Catharina-ziekenhuis
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 99 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: - PAD (ABI 0.15 after exercise test), Rutherford category 2, 3 or 4 - Significant stenoses (* 50%) and/or occlusions in the superficial femoral artery and/or popliteal artery (P1) - Eligible for endovascular treatment according to international guidelines (with the expectation of stenting after PTA) - Adequate inflow (

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: - Patients with PAD Rutherford category 5 and 6 - Contralateral lesions that require treatment within 30 days before or after the procedure - Contra-indication for anticoagulant therapy - Life expectancy

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
- Absence of binary restenosis (* 50% re-obstruction) of the target lesion as assessed by duplex ultrasound after 12 months without interval clinically driven reintervention - Number of clinically driven target lesion revascularisation within 12 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
- Changes in pain-free walking distance and absolute walking distance as assessed by standardized exercise test - Changes in quality of life as assessed by EuroQol 5 Demension (EQ-5D) questionnaire - Clinical complications (number of adverse events, serious adverse events and major adverse events) - Sustained clinical improvement as assessed by distribution of Rutherford stages - Procedural success (technical success, device success and procedural complications)

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: NL-OMON (via WHO ICTRP)