SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2022
Paclitaxel-Coated versus Uncoated Balloon for Femoropopliteal In-Stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several prospective controlled trials to date have assessed the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty (PCBA) versus uncoated balloon angioplasty (UCBA) for femoropopliteal (FP) in-stent restenosis (ISR). Therefore, this meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials aimed to summarize the results of these trials and present reliable conclusions. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CNKI databases for prospective randomized controlled trials (published between January 1, 2008, and July 31, 2021; no language restrictions) comparing PCBA with UCBA in the management of FP ISR. The main endpoints were recurrent restenosis, primary patency, freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR), clinical improvement, ankle-brachial index (ABI), and major adverse events (MAEs). We assessed the pooled data using a fixed effects model. Results: Of the 206 identified studies, seven were eligible and included in our analysis (N = 593 participants). Compared with UCBA, PCBA yielded a reduction in recurrent restenosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.38), a better primary patency (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.72-7.47), an improved likelihood of freedom from TLR (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.36-5.35), greater clinical improvement (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.50-3.79), and a similar mean difference in ABI (0.02; 95% CI, -0.11-0.14) and OR in MAEs (0.71; 95% CI, 0.24-2.14). Conclusions: PCBA as a treatment strategy can achieve better short-term outcomes of FP ISR management, including potent recurrent restenosis-lowering and symptom-improving capacity without increased MAEs. Therefore, it is a promising therapeutic strategy for patients with FP ISR. Systematic Review Registration: This work was registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (number: CRD42021261574).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.