Efficacy of the S.M.A.R.T. Control vs. other stents for aortoiliac occlusive disease in contemporary clinical practice.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of the S.M.A.R.T. Control stent vs. other stents in patients with symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) followed for up to 4 years.

METHODS: A subgroup analysis of data from a retrospective multicenter registry examined 2036 symptomatic patients (1659 men; mean age 71±8 years) who received stent-supported endovascular therapy for 2541 AIOD lesions between April 2005 and December 2009. The cohort was divided into the S.M.A.R.T. stent group (955 patients/1196 lesions) and the "other" stent group (1081 patients/1345 lesions). The main study outcomes of primary patency and event-free survival at 4 years were compared before and after propensity matching analysis. The rates for freedom from major amputation, surgical conversion, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse limb events were also assessed.

RESULTS: The S.M.A.R.T. Control stent group had greater frequency of critical limb ischemia (CLI), TASC C/D lesions, and chronic total occlusions. The mean follow-up was 25±17 months in the S.M.A.R.T. group vs. 29±19 months in the other stent group. After propensity matching, 4-year primary patency (86% vs. 76%, p<0.001) and freedom from adverse limb events (93% vs. 90%, p=0.04) were greater in the S.M.A.R.T. Control stent group, while event-free survival rates (75% vs. 77%, p=0.50) were similar between groups. Univariate subgroup analysis showed that use of the S.M.A.R.T. stent was associated with greater primary patency in patients with renal insufficiency (serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL) and CLI.

CONCLUSION: After propensity matching analysis, the durability of the S.M.A.R.T. stent was superior to that of other stents, which might reflect differing design characteristics.