Table 3.
Clinical effectiveness outcomes at the 12 months and last follow-up.a.
DCB | nSFA | Z/χ2 | P | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
At baseline | 3(3,4) | 3(3,4) | −1.316 | 0.188 | ||
At the 12-months | N = 54 limbs | N = 56 limbs | ||||
Change in Rutherford class | ||||||
marked improvement(-4) | 7(13.0%) | 0(0.0%) | / | 1.000 | ||
moderate improvement (−3) | 8(14.8%) | 2(3.6%) | 2.955 | 0.086 | ||
mild improvement(-2) | 13(24.1%) | 13(23.2%) | 0.011 | 0.915 | ||
minimal improvement(-1) | 15(27.8%) | 21(37.5%) | 1.180 | 0.277 | ||
no change(0) | 10(18.4%) | 16(28.6%) | 1.539 | 0.215 | ||
mildly worse(+1) | 1(1.9%) | 4(7.1%) | / | 0.364 | ||
moderately worse(+2) | 0(0.0%) | 0(0.0%) | / | / | ||
Improvement of Rutherford | ||||||
markedly effective rate | 28(51.9%) | 15(26.8%) | 7.254 | 0.007 | ||
the effective rate | 15(27.8%) | 21(37.5%) | 1.180 | 0.277 | ||
total effective rate | 43(79.7%) | 36(64.3%) | 3.198 | 0.074 | ||
ineffective rate | 10(18.4%) | 16(28.6%) | 1.539 | 0.215 | ||
deterioration rate | 1(1.9%) | 4(7.1%) | / | 0.364 | ||
At the last follow up | N = 54 limbs | N = 56 limbs | ||||
Change in Rutherford class | ||||||
marked improvement(-4) | 6(11.1%) | 2(3.6%) | 1.334 | 0.248 | ||
moderate improvement (−3) | 6(11.1%) | 6(10.7%) | 0.004 | 0.947 | ||
mild improvement(-2) | 9(16.6%) | 19(33.9%) | 4.317 | 0.038 | ||
minimal improvement(-1) | 12(22.2%) | 12(21.4%) | 0.010 | 0.920 | ||
no change(0) | 19(35.2%) | 15(26.8%) | 0.908 | 0.341 | ||
mildly worse(+1) | 1(1.9%) | 1(1.8%) | / | 1.000 | ||
moderately worse(+2) | 1(1.9%) | 1(1.8%) | / | 1.000 | ||
Improvement of Rutherford | ||||||
markedly effective rate | 21(38.8%) | 27(48.2%) | 0.972 | 0.324 | ||
the effective rate | 12(22.2%) | 12(21.4%) | 0.010 | 0.920 | ||
total effective rate | 33(61.0%) | 39(69.6%) | 0.885 | 0.347 | ||
ineffective rate | 19(35.2%) | 15(26.8%) | 0.908 | 0.341 | ||
deterioration rate | 2(3.8%) | 2(3.6%) | / | 1.000 |
Abbreviations: DCB = drug-coated balloon; nSFA = superficial femoral artery nonrevas cularization.
Non-normally distributed data were described as medians (quartiles). The qualitative data were described as counts (percentage).