Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01834495

Efficacy of Balloon-Expandable Stent Versus Self-Expandable Stent for the Atherosclerotic ILIAC Arterial Disease

The purpose of the investigators study is to examine and compare primary patency between balloon expandable cobalt chromium stent and self expandable nitinol stents (SCUBA versus COMPLETE-SE) in atherosclerotic iliac artery lesion.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

20 year–85 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Korea University Guro Hospital

Seoul, 152-703, South Korea

About this study

Obstructive atherosclerotic disease of the distal aorta and iliac arteries is preferentially treated with endovascular techniques, and an endovascular-first strategy can be recommended for all TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) A-C lesions. Low morbidity and mortality as well as a >90% technical success rate justify the endovascular-first approach. Currently, In an attempt to improve outcomes, stent use has increased, and a number of studies favor iliac stenting over simple Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA). A meta-analysis comparing iliac stenting to Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) found that stenting had higher rates of technical success and was associated with a 39% reduction in the risk of long-term loss of patency.

However, randomized control trial for comparison of primary patency between balloon expandable stent and self expandable stent has not been done, although there were some trials in that primary patency was compared among balloon expandable stents or among self expandable stents.

Currently, The choice of balloon versus self expandable stents is determined mainly by operator preference. The main advantages of balloon expandable stents are the higher radial stiffness and the more accurate placement, which is especially important in bifurcation lesions. In the external iliac artery, a primary stenting strategy using self-expandable stents compared with provisional stenting is preferred mainly due to a lower risk of dissection and elastic recoil.

Thus, the purpose of our study is to examine and compare primary patency between balloon expandable stent and self expandable stent(SCUBA versus COMPLETE SE stent)

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

1.Clinical criteria:

  • symptomatic peripheral-artery disease with
  • moderate to severe claudication (Rutherford 2-3),
  • chronic critical limb ischemia with pain while was at rest (Rutherford 4),
  • or chronic critical limb ischemia with ischemic ulcers (Rutherford 5-6)
  • Patients with signed informed consent
  • Anatomical criteria:
  • Target lesion length ≥ 4 cm by angiographic estimation,
  • Stenosis of more than 50% or occlusion of the ipsilateral iliac artery,
  • Patent (≤50% stenosis) ipsilateral femoropopliteal artery or concomitantly treatable ipsilateral femoropopliteal lesions (≤30% residual stenosis),
  • At least one patent (less than 50% stenosed) tibioperoneal runoff vessel.

Exclusion criteria

  • Disagree with written informed consent
  • Major bleeding history within prior 2 months
  • Known hypersensitivity or contraindication to any of the following medications: heparin, aspirin, clopidogrel or contrast agent
  • Acute limb ischemia
  • Untreated inflow disease of the distal aorta (more than 50 percent stenosis or occlusion)
  • Patients that major amputation ("above the ankle" amputation) has been done, is planned or required
  • Patients with life expectancy <1 year due to comorbidity
  • Age > 85 years

Treatment and study plan

Balloon expandable stent

Device

provisional stenting should be performed; the case that optimal ballooning response in not obtained should be enrolled. Optimal balloon response is defined as a residual pressure gradient of > 15mmHg, residual stenosis of >30% and flow limiting dissection

Other names: SCUBA stent

Self expandable stent

Device

provisional stenting should be performed; the case that optimal ballooning response in not obtained should be enrolled. Optimal balloon response is defined as a residual pressure gradient of > 15mmHg, residual stenosis of >30% and flow limiting dissection

Other names: COMPLETE SE

Primary outcomes

  1. Primary patency rate

    Time frame: 1year

    stenosis of at least 50 percent of the luminal diameter in the treated segment 12 months after intervention, as determined by quantitative angiography or CT angiography or peak systolic velocity ratio >2.5 by duplex sonography according to the stent type

Secondary outcomes

  1. Clinical outcome

    Time frame: 1 year

    Limb salvage (free of above-the-ankle amputation)

  2. Clinical outcome

    Time frame: 1 year

    Sustained clinical improvement rate at 12 month follow-up

  3. Clinical outcome

    Time frame: 1 year

    Ankle-brachial index (ABI) at 12 months

  4. Clinical outcome

    Time frame: 1 year

    The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 12 months

  5. Clinical outcome

    Time frame: 1year

    Repeated target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate

  6. Angiographic outcome

    Time frame: 1 year

    Stent fracture rate

  7. Angiographic outcome

    Time frame: 1 year

    Incidence of geographic miss

  8. Clinical outcome

    Time frame: 1 year

    Repeated target extremity revascularization (TER) rate

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Korea University Guro Hospital

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Phase 4 Study of Efficacy of Balloon-Expandable Cobalt Chromium SCUBA Stent Versus Self-Expandable Stent COMPLETE-SE Nitinol Stenting for the Atherosclerotic ILIAC Arterial Disease: Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Important dates

Study start
2012
Primary completion
2018
Study completion
2019
First posted
Apr 18, 2013
Registry last updated
Aug 14, 2019

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.