|
General |
Study Status |
Completed |
Application Number / Requirement Number |
P210025 / PAS001 |
Date Original Protocol Accepted |
06/16/2023
|
Date Current Protocol Accepted |
 
|
Study Name |
TRANSCEND Continued Follow-up Study
|
Device Name |
SurVeil Drug-Coated Balloon
|
Clinical Trial Number(s) |
NCT03241459
|
General Study Protocol Parameters |
Study Design |
Randomized Clinical Trial
|
Data Source |
New Data Collection
|
Comparison Group |
Concurrent Control
|
Analysis Type |
Descriptive
|
Study Population |
Adult: >21
|
Detailed Study Protocol Parameters |
Study Objectives |
To show sufficient long term safety and effectiveness of the SurVeil DCB for use in superficial femoral or popliteal arteries. The study was designed as a global, multicenter, single blind, randomized trial.
This study is continued follow-up of premarket cohorts.
|
Study Population |
Adult patients with PAD
|
Sample Size |
N=446 (n=222 Surveil DCB; n=224 IN.PACT Admiral DCB)
|
Key Study Endpoints |
The primary safety endpoint was a composite of freedom from device- and procedure-related death through 30 days post-index procedure and freedom from major target limb amputation (above the ankle) and clinically-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) through 12 months post-index procedure.
The primary effectiveness endpoint was primary patency, defined as a composite of freedom from clinically-driven TLR and binary restenosis (restenosis defined as DUS peak systolic velocity ratio [PSVR] greater than or equal to 2.4 or greater than or equal to 50% stenosis as assessed by independent angiographic and DUS core labs) through 12 months post-index procedure.
|
Follow-up Visits and Length of Follow-up |
5 years annually
|
Interim or Final Data Summary |
Actual Number of Patients Enrolled |
446
|
Actual Number of Sites Enrolled |
79
|
Patient Follow-up Rate |
Approximately 85-92%
|
Final Safety Findings |
91.8% Surveil vs 89.8% for the IN.PACT
|
Final Effect Findings |
82.2% Surveil vs 85.9% for the IN.PACT
|
Study Strengths & Weaknesses |
Strengths: RCT, long term follow up Weaknesses: Follow up complacence (withdrawals) in the test arm
|
Recommendations for Labeling Changes |
Update to reflect the new data at 5 years
|