BACKGROUND: To report the 3-year safety and effectiveness results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing the ZILVER PTX paclitaxel-eluting stent to surgical bypass and to conduct a health economic analysis up to 3-year follow-up of the two treatment modalities.METHODS: This is a study in symptomatic TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) C and D femoropopliteal lesions comparing endovascular ZILVER PTX stenting vs. surgical bypass surgery using a prosthetic graft (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01952457). Between October 2013 and July 2017, 220 patients (mean age 68.6 & PLUSMN;10.5 years; 159 men) were enrolled and randomized to the ZILVER PTX treatment group (113, 51.40%) or the bypass treatment group (107, 48.60%). One of the secondary outcomes was primary patency at 3-year, defined as no evidence of binary restenosis or occlusion within the target lesion or bypass graft based on a duplex ultrasound peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 and no clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in endovascular cases or reintervention to restore flow in the bypass. An economic analysis was conducted to analyze the cost differences between ZILVER PTX and bypass, which shows the perspective of the public authority/ organization that pays for healthcare in the two countries (payor), Germany and USA. RESULTS: The 3-year primary patency rate was 53.30% (95% CI 61.40% to 45.20%) for the ZILVER PTX group vs. 58.20% (95% CI 67.10% to 49.30%) for the bypass arm (P=0.9721). Freedom from TLR at 3-year was 62.80% (95% CI 72.60% to 53%) for the ZILVER PTX group vs. 65.30% (95% CI 75.40% to 55.20%) for the bypass group (P=0.635). There was also no significant difference (P=0.358) in survival rate at 3-year between the ZILVER PTX group 78.50%, (95% CI to 87.70% to 69.30%) and the bypass group 87.40% (95% CI 97.6% to 77.2%). None of the deaths was categorized as related to the procedure or device. The economic analysis, taking into account procedural-, hospitalization-and reintervention costs, showed a clear cost-benefit for Zilver PTX in both investigated countries up to 3-year follow-up: Germany (Bypass euro9446 per patient versus ZILVER PTX euro5755) and USA (Bypass $26,373 per patient versus ZILVER PTX $19,186).CONCLUSIONS: The non-inferior safety and effectiveness results of the ZILVER PTX stent were associated with lower costs for the payer and confirmed that ZILVER PTX stent treatment can be considered as a valid alternative for bypass surgery in long and complex femoropopliteal lesions.

ZILVERPASS Study: ZILVER PTX Stent vs. Bypass Surgery in Femoropopliteal Lesions, 3 year results and economic analysis

Veroux, Pierfrancesco;Giaquinta, Alessia;
2023-01-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To report the 3-year safety and effectiveness results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing the ZILVER PTX paclitaxel-eluting stent to surgical bypass and to conduct a health economic analysis up to 3-year follow-up of the two treatment modalities.METHODS: This is a study in symptomatic TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) C and D femoropopliteal lesions comparing endovascular ZILVER PTX stenting vs. surgical bypass surgery using a prosthetic graft (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01952457). Between October 2013 and July 2017, 220 patients (mean age 68.6 & PLUSMN;10.5 years; 159 men) were enrolled and randomized to the ZILVER PTX treatment group (113, 51.40%) or the bypass treatment group (107, 48.60%). One of the secondary outcomes was primary patency at 3-year, defined as no evidence of binary restenosis or occlusion within the target lesion or bypass graft based on a duplex ultrasound peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 and no clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in endovascular cases or reintervention to restore flow in the bypass. An economic analysis was conducted to analyze the cost differences between ZILVER PTX and bypass, which shows the perspective of the public authority/ organization that pays for healthcare in the two countries (payor), Germany and USA. RESULTS: The 3-year primary patency rate was 53.30% (95% CI 61.40% to 45.20%) for the ZILVER PTX group vs. 58.20% (95% CI 67.10% to 49.30%) for the bypass arm (P=0.9721). Freedom from TLR at 3-year was 62.80% (95% CI 72.60% to 53%) for the ZILVER PTX group vs. 65.30% (95% CI 75.40% to 55.20%) for the bypass group (P=0.635). There was also no significant difference (P=0.358) in survival rate at 3-year between the ZILVER PTX group 78.50%, (95% CI to 87.70% to 69.30%) and the bypass group 87.40% (95% CI 97.6% to 77.2%). None of the deaths was categorized as related to the procedure or device. The economic analysis, taking into account procedural-, hospitalization-and reintervention costs, showed a clear cost-benefit for Zilver PTX in both investigated countries up to 3-year follow-up: Germany (Bypass euro9446 per patient versus ZILVER PTX euro5755) and USA (Bypass $26,373 per patient versus ZILVER PTX $19,186).CONCLUSIONS: The non-inferior safety and effectiveness results of the ZILVER PTX stent were associated with lower costs for the payer and confirmed that ZILVER PTX stent treatment can be considered as a valid alternative for bypass surgery in long and complex femoropopliteal lesions.
2023
Drug-eluting stents
Endovascular procedures
Peripheral artery disease
Costs and cost analysis
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ZILVERPASS Study.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 4.95 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.95 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/572129
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact