BATTLE Trial: Bare Metal Stent Versus Paclitaxel Eluting Stent in the Setting of Primary Stenting of Intermediate Length Femoropopliteal Lesions

Over the past years, endovascular interventions have become an important part of treatment in patients with peripheral arterial disease.1 Indication for endovascular repair of femoropopliteal lesions has been considerably enlarged as shown in the TASC classification.1 Enlargement of endovascular therapy indication was based on patient choice for a less invasive technique and evidence based medicine. Consequently, TASC classification of lesions has been modified to reflect increased evidence for endovascular treatment of more extensive femoropopliteal lesions, and indication for endovascular repair has been enlarged to more severe TASC types. In summary, endovascular treatment is indicated for TASC A and B lesions which correspond to femoropopliteal lesions ≤15-cm. To treat these lesions, the interventionalists have at their disposal a huge tool box. Evaluation of these tools is crucial to determine the right treatment strategy to avoid further reinterventions and overcosts. The objective of the BATTLE trial is to compare a bare metal self expandable nitinol stent (Misago RX) versus a paclitaxel eluting stent (Zilver PTX) in the treatment of above-the-knee intermediate length femoropopliteal lesions. From hospitals in Europe (France, Switzerland) we will randomly assign patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic femoropopliteal lesions to be treated either by bare metal stent or paclitaxel eluting stent. In total, 186 patients will be randomized (93 per group).