UCSF

Background

Peripheral vascular devices (stents and balloons) coated with paclitaxel were developed to address suboptimal outcomes associated with percutaneous revascularization procedures of the femoral-popliteal arteries. In randomized controlled trials (RCT), paclitaxel-coated devices (PCD) provided increased long-term patency and a decreased need for repeat revascularization procedures compared with uncoated devices. This finding resulted in the adoption of their use for endovascular lower extremity revascularization procedures. However, in late 2018 a study-level meta-analysis showed increased all-cause mortality at 2 years or more after the procedure in patients treated with PCDs. This review examines the subsequent data evaluation following the publication of the meta-analysis.

Methods

We review the published responses of physicians, regulatory agencies, and patient advocates during 15-month period after the meta-analysis. We present the additional data gathered from RCTs that comprised the meta-analysis and safety outcomes from large insurance databases in both the United States and Europe.

Results

Immediately after the publication of the meta-analysis, concern for patient safety resulted in less PCD use, the suspension of large RCTs evaluating their use, and the publication of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration informing physicians that there was uncertainty in the benefit-risk profile of these devices for indicated patients and that the potential risk should be assessed before the use of PCDs. Review of the meta-analysis found that a mortality signal was present, but criticisms included that the evaluation was performed on study-level, not patient-level data, and the studies in the analysis were heterogenous in device type, paclitaxel doses, and patient characteristics. Further, the studies were not designed to be pooled nor were they powered for evaluating long-term safety. Clinical characteristics associated with a drug effect or causal relationship were also absent. Specifically, there was no dose response, no clustering of causes of death, and a lack of signal consistency across geographic regions. As more long-term data became available in the RCTs the strength of the mortality signal diminished and analysis of real-world use in large insurance databases, showed that there was no significant increase in all-cause mortality associated with PCD use.

Conclusions

The available data do not provide definitive proof for increased mortality with PCD use. A key observation is that trial design improvements will be necessary to better evaluate the risk-benefit profile of PCDs.