Use of the helical SUPERA™ stent and Passeo-18 Lux™ drug-coated balloon to treat recurrent cephalic arch stenosis for dysfunctional brachiocephalic fistulas: 1 year results of the Arch V SUPERA-LUX study.

BACKGROUND Aim of Arch V SUPERA-LUX was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination therapy of SUPERA™ (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) helical stent implantation and Passeo-18 Lux™ (Biotronik Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore) drug coated balloon (DCB) elution to treat recurrent cephalic arch stenosis (CAS) in the setting of AV access dysfunction. METHODS Investigator-initiated, single-center, single-arm prospective pilot study of 20 end-stage renal failure Asian patients with a dysfunctional brachiocephalic fistula. All had symptomatic recurrent CAS within 6 months of prior intervention. The lesion was pre-dilated with a standard high-pressure balloon (Biotronik Passeo-35 HP balloon). The DCB (Passeo-18 Lux™) is subsequently inflated and the SUPERA™ stent deployed to sit 2 mm distal to the cephalic arch and covering the CAS but within the DCB zone. All patients were prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months and followed up with Duplex ultrasound at 6- and 12-months. RESULTS There were 9 (45%) males and mean age was 67 ± 11.0 years. Mean time from prior procedure was 113 ± 68 days and main indication for reintervention was high venous pressure (9/20, 45%). Technical success was 100% and there were no peri-procedural complications related to either stent or DCB deployment. Target lesion primary patency at 6- and 12-months was 10/18 (55%) and 5/16 (31%), respectively. Mean time to target lesion re-intervention was 170 ± 82 days. Circuit access patency was 8/18 (44%) and 2/16 (13%) at 6- and 12-months respectively and mortality was 3/20 (15%) attributed to the patients' underlying co-morbidities. CONCLUSION Dual prong strategy of using SUPERA™ stenting and Passeo-18 Lux™ drug elution for recurrent CAS, although safe, was no more efficacious than conventional balloon angioplasty or stenting alone. Development of an intense inflammatory reaction within the stent led to reinterventions of a number of cases with suboptimal results.