IN.PACT Amphirion paclitaxel eluting balloon versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for infrapopliteal revascularization of critical limb ischemia: rationale and protocol for an ongoing randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND The effectiveness and durability of endovascular revascularization therapies for chronic critical limb ischemia (CLI) are challenged by the extensive burden of infrapopliteal arterial disease and lesion-related characteristics (e.g., severe calcification, chronic total occlusions), which frequently result in poor clinical outcomes. While infrapopliteal vessel patency directly affects pain relief and wound healing, sustained patency and extravascular care both contribute to the ultimate "patient-centric" outcomes of functional limb preservation, mobility and quality of life (QoL). METHODS/DESIGN IN.PACT DEEP is a 2:1 randomized controlled trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of infrapopliteal arterial revascularization between the IN.PACT Amphirion™ paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon (IA-DEB) and standard balloon angioplasty (PTA) in patients with Rutherford Class 4-5-6 CLI. DISCUSSION This multicenter trial has enrolled 358 patients at 13 European centers with independent angiographic core lab adjudication of the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion late luminal loss (LLL) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in major amputation-free surviving patients through 12-months. An independent wound core lab will evaluate all ischemic wounds to assess the extent of healing and time to healing at 1, 6, and 12 months. A QoL questionnaire including a pain scale will assess changes from baseline scores through 12 months. A Clinical Events Committee and Data Safety Monitoring Board will adjudicate the composite primary safety endpoints of all-cause death, major amputation, and clinically driven TLR at 6 months and other trial endpoints and supervise patient safety throughout the study. All patients will be followed for 5 years. A literature review is presented of the current status of endovascular treatment of CLI with drug-eluting balloon and standard PTA. The rationale and design of the IN.PACT DEEP Trial are discussed. IN.PACT DEEP is a milestone, prospective, randomized, robust, independent core lab-adjudicated CLI trial that will evaluate the role of a new infrapopliteal revascularization technology, the IA-DEB, compared to PTA. It will assess the overall impact on infrapopliteal artery patency, limb salvage, wound healing, pain control, QoL, and patient mobility. The 1-year results of the adjudicated co-primary and secondary endpoints will be available in 2014. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT00941733

Drug-eluting balloon versus standard balloon angioplasty for infrapopliteal arterial revascularization in critical limb ischemia: 12-month results from the IN.PACT DEEP randomized trial.

BACKGROUND Drug-eluting balloons (DEB) may reduce infrapopliteal restenosis and reintervention rates versus percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and improve wound healing/limb preservation. OBJECTIVES The goal of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of IN.PACT Amphirion drug-eluting balloons (IA-DEB) compared to PTA for infrapopliteal arterial revascularization in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). METHODS Within a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial with independent clinical event adjudication and angiographic and wound core laboratories 358 CLI patients were randomized 2:1 to IA-DEB or PTA. The 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints through 12 months were clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) and late lumen loss (LLL). The primary safety endpoint through 6 months was a composite of all-cause mortality, major amputation, and CD-TLR. RESULTS Clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Significant baseline differences between the IA-DEB and PTA arms included mean lesion length (10.2 cm vs. 12.9 cm; p = 0.002), impaired inflow (40.7% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.035), and previous target limb revascularization (32.2% vs. 21.8%; p = 0.047). Primary efficacy results of IA-DEB versus PTA were CD-TLR of 9.2% versus 13.1% (p = 0.291) and LLL of 0.61 ± 0.78 mm versus 0.62 ± 0.78 mm (p = 0.950). Primary safety endpoints were 17.7% versus 15.8% (p = 0.021) and met the noninferiority hypothesis. A safety signal driven by major amputations through 12 months was observed in the IA-DEB arm versus the PTA arm (8.8% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.080). CONCLUSIONS In patients with CLI, IA-DEB had comparable efficacy to PTA. While primary safety was met, there was a trend towards an increased major amputation rate through 12 months compared to PTA. (Study of IN.PACT Amphirion™ Drug Eluting Balloon vs. Standard PTA for the Treatment of Below the Knee Critical Limb Ischemia [INPACT-DEEP]; NCT00941733).

An analysis of IN.PACT DEEP randomized trial on the limitations of the societal guidelines-recommended hemodynamic parameters to diagnose critical limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE Recent small single-center data indicate that the current hemodynamic parameters used to diagnose critical limb ischemia are insensitive. We investigated the validity of the societal guidelines-recommended hemodynamic parameters against core laboratory-adjudicated angiographic data from the multicenter IN.PACT DEEP (RandomIzed AmPhirion DEEP DEB vs StAndard PTA for the treatment of below the knee Critical limb ischemia) Trial. METHODS Of the 358 patients in the IN.PACT DEEP Trial to assess drug-eluting balloon vs standard balloon angioplasty for infrapopliteal disease, 237 had isolated infrapopliteal disease with an available ankle-brachial index (ABI), and only 40 of the latter had available toe pressure measurements. The associations between ABI, ankle pressure, and toe pressure with tibial runoff, Rutherford category, and plantar arch were examined according to the cutoff points recommended by the societal guidelines. Abnormal tibial runoff was defined as severely stenotic (≥70%) or occluded and scored as one-, two-, or three-vessel disease. A stenotic or occluded plantar arch was considered abnormal. RESULTS Only 14 of 237 patients (6%) had an ABI <0.4. Abnormal ankle pressure, defined as <50 mm Hg if Rutherford category 4 and <70 mm Hg if Rutherford category 5 or 6, was found only in 37 patients (16%). Abnormal toe pressure, defined as <30 mm Hg if Rutherford category 4 and <50 mm Hg if Rutherford category 5 or 6, was found in 24 of 40 patients (60%) with available measurements. Importantly, 29% of these 24 patients had an ABI within normal reference ranges. A univariate multinomial logistic regression found no association between the above hemodynamic parameters and the number of diseased infrapopliteal vessels. However, there was a significant paradoxic association where patients with Rutherford category 6 had higher ABI and ankle pressure than those with Rutherford category 5. Similarly, there was no association between ABI and pedal arch patency. CONCLUSIONS The current recommended hemodynamic parameters fail to identify a significant portion of patients with lower extremity ulcers and angiographically proven severe disease. Toe pressure has better sensitivity and should be considered in all patients with critical limb ischemia.

Economic Policy Coordination in the Economic and Monetary Union: From Maastricht via the SGP to the Fiscal Pact. CEPS Working Document No. 381, August 2013

This paper first takes a step backwards with an attempt to situate the recent adoption of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union in the context of discussions on the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and the ‘Maastricht criteria’, as fixed in the Maastricht Treaty for membership in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in a longer perspective of the sharing of competences for macroeconomic policy-making within the EU. It then presents the main features of the new so-called ‘Fiscal Compact’ and its relationship to the SGP and draws some conclusions as regards the importance and relevance of this new step in the process of economic policy coordination. It concludes that the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union does not seem to offer a definitive solution to the problem of finding the appropriate budgetary-monetary policy mix in EMU, which was already well identified in the Delors report in 1989 and regularly emphasised ever since and is now seriously aggravated due to the crisis in the eurozone. Furthermore, implementation of this Treaty may under certain circumstances contribute to an increase in the uncertainties as regards the distribution of the competences between the European Parliament and national parliaments and between the former and the Commission and the Council.

Flexibility clauses in the Stability and Growth Pact: No need for revision. CEPS Policy Brief No. 319, 24 July 2014

This Policy Brief offers an in-depth review of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and looks at whether the margins of flexibility within existing rules are sufficient in the current climate of low growth, or whether there is a need to broaden them. The issue is especially relevant as the changing economic environment is raising fresh questions about whether the EU’s current common economic policies are able to manage dismal growth and low inflation. The fragile state of confidence in financial markets and the unresolved but inevitable questions of moral hazard linked to lax fiscal policies mean that no large-scale fiscal expansion to support the recovery of economic activity is feasible. The discussion may therefore only concern the scope within the SGP to accommodate an unexpected drop in economic activity and to provide room for the implementation of structural reforms. Here, we analyse the flexibility clauses of the Stability and Growth Pact under three headings; namely “exceptional circumstances”, “structural reforms and other relevant factors”, and the “investment clause”. Recommendation: Our main conclusion is that the SGP contains sufficient flexibility to accommodate an unexpected drop in economic activity and has the margins needed to finance structural reforms during the transition to the new regime. We therefore see no need to change the existing rules of the SGP. We believe that the ongoing debate about a fresh growth strategy for the eurozone and the European Union would greatly benefit from removing from the Council table ill-formulated and unnecessary demands for greater flexibility in the SGP.