BACKGROUND: A clear patency benefit of a drug-eluting stent (DES) over bare metal stents (BMSs) for treating peripheral artery disease of the femoropopliteal segment has not been definitively demonstrated. The EMINENT study (Trial Comparing Eluvia Versus Bare Metal Stent in Treatment of Superficial Femoral and/or Proximal Popliteal Artery) was designed to evaluate the patency of the Eluvia DES (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA), a polymer-coated paclitaxel-eluting stent, compared with BMSs for the treatment of femoropopliteal artery lesions. METHODS: EMINENT is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter European study with blinded participants and outcome assessment. Patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (Rutherford category 2, 3, or 4) of the native superficial femoral artery or proximal popliteal artery with stenosis ≥70%, vessel diameter of 4 to 6 mm, and total lesion length of 30 to 210 mm were randomly assigned 2:1 to treatment with DES or BMS. The primary effectiveness outcome was primary patency at 12 months, defined as independent core laboratory-assessed duplex ultrasound peak systolic velocity ratio ≤2.4 in the absence of clinically driven target lesion revascularization or surgical bypass of the target lesion. Primary sustained clinical improvement was a secondary outcome defined as a decrease in Rutherford classification of ≥1 categories compared with baseline without a repeat target lesion revascularization. Health-related quality of life and walking function were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 775 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with DES (n=508) or commercially available BMSs (n=267). Baseline clinical, demographic, and lesion characteristics were similar between the study groups. Mean lesion length was 75.6±50.3 and 72.2±47.0 mm in the DES and BMS groups, respectively. The 12-month incidence of primary patency for DES treatment (83.2% [337 of 405]) was significantly greater than for BMS (74.3% [165 of 222]; P<0.01). Incidence of primary sustained clinical improvement was greater among patients treated with the DES than among those who received a BMS (83.0% versus 76.6%; P=0.045). The health-related quality of life dimensions of mobility and pain/discomfort improved for the majority of patients in both groups (for 66.4% and 53.6% of DES-treated and for 64.2% and 58.1% of BMS-treated patients, respectively) but did not differ significantly. At 12 months, no statistical difference was observed in all-cause mortality between patients treated with the DES or BMS (2.7% [13 of 474] versus 1.1% [3 of 263]; relative risk, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.69-8.36]; P=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: By demonstrating superior 1-year primary patency, the results of the EMINENT randomized study support the benefit of using a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent as a first-line stent-based intervention for patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease attributable to femoropopliteal lesions. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02921230.

OBJECTIVE: There have been concerns about the long term safety of paclitaxel coated devices in the lower limbs. A formal systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to examine the long term risk of major amputation using paclitaxel coated balloons in peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHOD: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (ID 227761). A broad bibliographic search was performed for RCTs investigating paclitaxel coated balloons in the peripheral arteries (femoropopliteal and infrapopliteal) for treatment of intermittent claudication or critical limb ischaemia (CLI). The literature search was last updated on 20 February 2021 without any restrictions on publication language, date, or status. Major amputations were analysed with time to event methods employing one and two stage models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, combinatorial meta-analysis, and a multivariable dose response meta-analysis to examine presence of a biological gradient were also performed. RESULTS: In all, 21 RCTs with 3 760 lower limbs were analysed (52% intermittent claudication and 48% CLI; median follow up two years). There were 87 major amputations of 2 216 limbs in the paclitaxel arms (4.0% crude risk) compared with 41 major amputations in 1 544 limbs in the control arms (2.7% crude risk). The risk of major amputation was significantly higher for paclitaxel coated balloons with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.66 (95% CI 1.14 - 2.42; p = .008, one stage stratified Cox model). The prediction interval was 95% CI 1.10 - 2.46 (two stage model). The observed amputation risk was consistent for both femoropopliteal (p = .055) and infrapopliteal (p = .055) vessels. Number needed to harm was 35 for CLI. There was good evidence of a significant non-linear dose response relationship with accelerated risk per cumulative paclitaxel dose (chi square model p = .007). There was no evidence of publication bias (p = .80) and no significant statistical heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 0%, p = .77). Results were stable across sensitivity analyses (different models and subgroups based on anatomy and clinical indication and excluding unpublished trials). There were no influential single trials. Level of certainty in evidence was downrated from high to moderate because of sparse events in some studies. CONCLUSION: There appears to be heightened risk of major amputation after use of paclitaxel coated balloons in the peripheral arteries. Further investigations are warranted urgently.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be treated by local and regional methods of percutaneous interventional radiological techniques. Indications depend on tumor size, type and stage, as well as patient's condition, liver function and co-morbidities. According to international classification systems such as Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification, very early, early or intermediate staged tumors can be treated either with ablative methods or with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), depending on tumor characteristics. The combination of both allows for individualized forms of treatment with the ultimate goal of improving response and survival. In recent years, a lot of research has been carried out in combining locoregional approaches with immune therapy. Although recent developments in systemic treatment, especially immunotherapy, seem quite promising and have expanded possible combined treatment options, there is still not enough evidence in their favor. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive up-to-date overview of all these techniques, explaining indications, contraindications, technical problems, outcomes, results and complications. Moreover, combinations of percutaneous treatment with each other or with immunotherapy and future options will be discussed. Use of all those methods as down-staging or bridging solutions until surgery or transplantation are taken into consideration will also be reviewed. CONCLUSION: Local and regional therapies remain a mainstay of curative and palliative treatment of patients with HCC. Currently, evidence on potential combination of the local and regional treatment options with each other as well as with other treatment modalities is growing and has the potential to further individualize HCC therapy. To identify the most suitable treatment option out of these new various options, a repeated interdisciplinary discussion of each case by the tumor board is of utmost importance.