Comparison of ultrasound‐guided versus angiography‐guided endovascular treatment for femoropopliteal artery occlusive disease

PURPOSE This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided and angiography-guided intraluminal approach for femoropopliteal (FP) artery occlusive disease. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed using the data collected regarding patients that underwent endovascular treatment (EVT) for FP artery occlusive disease between January 2010 and April 2018 at two centers. A total of 221 consecutive de novo lesions were analyzed according to the method of recanalization. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of recanalization methods for FP occlusive lesions. The prognostic value was analyzed based on the number of guidewires, wire cross time, distal puncture rate, radiation exposure, the amount of contrast media, primary patency, and clinically driven-target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) at 1 year. RESULTS A total of 44 matched pairs of patients were analyzed after propensity score-matched analysis. The number of guidewires, distal puncture rate, wire passage time, radiation exposure, and the amount of contrast media were significantly lower in the ultrasound-guide group, with 3.4 vs. 4.7, 9.1% vs. 54.5%, 47 min vs. 83 min, 207 mGy vs. 821 mGy, 66 ml vs. 109 ml, respectively (p < .01), but there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of primary patency and CD-TLR. CONCLUSIONS The ultrasound-guided EVT for FP occlusive disease significantly reduced the number of guidewires, wire cross time, the rate of distal puncture, radiation exposure, and the amount of contrast media used.